get_fx_presets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially meets it by disclosing the return shape ('Object with list of preset names'), which compensates for the absent output schema. However, it never states this is a read-only, non-mutating call, nor how it behaves if track_index/fx_index are invalid.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence and the return note in the second. Each line earns its place, though the 'Returns:' block formatting is slightly heavy for a single-field result.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool the description is minimally viable: it explains the output (covering the missing output schema) but leaves parameter semantics and read-only/error behavior entirely to inference, with no annotations to fill the gap.

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%, so both required integer parameters are undocumented. The phrase 'presets available for an FX' only loosely implies fx_index identifies the FX; track_index is never explained and neither parameter's indexing/zero- vs one-based convention or valid range is given.

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 clear verb and resource: list presets available for a given FX. It is naturally distinguished from get_fx_preset/set_fx_preset/save_fx_preset by the plural 'list' framing, but the description never names or contrasts those siblings 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 indication of when to use this versus get_fx_preset, set_fx_preset, or save_fx_preset, nor any prerequisites (e.g. the FX must already exist on the track). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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