get_fx_envelope_points

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

ReadOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description contributes the return shape (time, value, shown, shape, tension, selected), which is genuinely useful. It omits behavioral details such as point ordering, behavior on an empty or unarmed envelope, and whether indices are zero-based.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, purpose first then return shape, with no filler. Efficient, though the space saved is space that could have documented the parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Return values are covered despite no output schema, but with three undocumented required parameters and no mention of how to obtain valid fx_index/param_index values, an agent could easily call it with wrong indices and get an empty or errored result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three parameters are required integers, yet the description says nothing about track_index, fx_index, or param_index — not their indexing base, nor whether fx_index/param_index refer to positions in the track's FX chain and plugin parameter list. Only the return fields are explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all automation points from an FX parameter envelope.' The scope qualifier 'FX parameter' distinguishes it conceptually from the track-envelope sibling get_envelope_points, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, even though the sibling list contains near-identical tools (get_envelope_points, get_fx_envelope, get_envelope_point_count) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer which envelope type this covers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.