take_fx_get_enabled

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful context by clarifying that 'enabled' means not bypassed and that the return is an object with a boolean 'ret' field. It does not contradict the annotations, though it could say more about error behavior or edge cases.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, but the empty 'Args:' section is wasted space and the return information is terse. It is not verbose, but it includes a placeholder that does not earn its place.

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 getter with four required indices and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameters and their ordering. It covers the return shape, but the empty Args section leaves a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for four required integer parameters, and the description provides no parameter meaning beyond an empty 'Args:' placeholder. It fails to compensate for the schema gap by explaining track_index, item_index, take_index, or fx_index.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the enabled (not bypassed) state of an FX plugin on a take.' It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling setters and track-level FX tools by naming the take scope and the enabled-state concept.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as take_fx_set_enabled or track_fx_get_enabled. The description states what it does but not when or why to choose it.

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