track_fx_get_count

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return shape ('Object with 'ret' field containing count'), which is useful beyond the annotation. It doesn't disclose edge cases like behavior for tracks with no FX or invalid track_index, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose and a brief return format note. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. The return format line is useful and not redundant with the schema since there's no output schema.

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 read-only count tool with one parameter, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the return shape and purpose. However, it doesn't clarify track_index semantics (zero-based vs one-based) or behavior for invalid indices, which an agent might need to call it correctly. The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety aspect.

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 compensate. It names the resource ('track') but doesn't explain what track_index means (zero-based? which track?). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 track.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_fx_get_list or take_fx_get_count, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: it's a read-only query for a track's FX count, and the required track_index parameter indicates which track. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over track_fx_get_list or take_fx_get_count, nor does it mention any prerequisites like track existence.

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