take_fx_get_param_name

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description only restates that it retrieves a name, adding no behavioral context such as what happens when indices are invalid or whether a missing plugin errors out.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the trailing 'Args:' is an unfilled placeholder that adds noise without content, making the text feel truncated rather than complete.

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 getter requiring a five-level index chain (track > item > take > fx > param) with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how the indices relate or what shape the returned name takes.

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?

All five required parameters (track_index, item_index, take_index, fx_index, param_index) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for them at all — it even trails off with a dangling 'Args:' and no content. The chained index structure is completely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the name of a parameter on a take's FX plugin.' This is precise enough to separate it from take_fx_get_param (value) and take_fx_get_num_params (count), though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus take_fx_get_param, track_fx_get_param_name, or any other sibling. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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