get_fx_presets

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses that this is a read-only operation, so the description's burden is lower. The description adds that it returns an object with a list of preset names, which is mildly useful but does not go beyond what an agent would infer. It does not mention error conditions, indexing behavior, or any other side-effect-relevant details, but given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is extremely concise, containing only two short sentences with no filler. It is structured as a one-line purpose followed by a return type note, which is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitted parameter explanations, so while it is concise, it is not optimally structured for clarity. Still, it scores high on conciseness alone.

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?

Given that there are 2 required parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the index parameters, how they are resolved, or any edge cases. The return type is loosely described as an 'Object with list of preset names,' but without structure. Sibling tools like get_fx_preset and set_fx_preset suggest a broader FX context, but the description fails to position this tool within that context. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional documentation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining what track_index and fx_index refer to. It does not mention either parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess that track_index identifies a track and fx_index identifies an effect on that track. This is a critical omission since both parameters are required and undocumented, making it impossible to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of presets available for an FX'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_fx_preset, but the plural 'presets' versus singular 'preset' provides a natural distinction, so it is not misleading.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_fx_preset, set_fx_preset, or save_fx_preset. It also lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid track_index and fx_index) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only implied usage is 'get presets for an FX,' which is not enough for an agent to choose correctly among related tools.

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