take_fx_get_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ('Object with ret field containing the FX count'), which is useful because no output schema exists. However, it omits other behavioral details like error conditions or indexing requirements, making it adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the simple getter complexity, the lack of output schema, and the 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the required indices. It states purpose and return shape but leaves parameter semantics entirely unaddressed, so an agent cannot fully determine how to call it correctly from the description alone.

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 the description must carry the burden for three required parameters (track_index, item_index, take_index). It only indirectly hints at take_index via 'on a take' and provides no information about track_index or item_index. This is insufficient for a three-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the number of FX plugins on a take.' It clearly distinguishes the count operation from siblings like take_fx_get_list by specifying 'number', and from track_fx_get_count by specifying 'on a take'. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of the top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as take_fx_get_list or track_fx_get_count. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose; no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing advice are provided.

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