track_fx_get_enabled

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the return shape ('ret' boolean), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics beyond the implicit 'Get', out-of-range index behavior, or error conditions for a tool whose sole behavior is state inspection.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the return contract stated compactly. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no output schema it does provide the return type, which covers part of the gap. But with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, it should at minimum clarify track-vs-take FX scope and index conventions.

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 track_index and fx_index are documented nowhere. The description adds no meaning: no indication of 0-based vs 1-based indexing, valid ranges, or whether indices refer to visible or full plugin chains. It does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the enabled state of an FX plugin.' An agent can identify this as a read of FX bypass/enable state. However, it never says 'track' FX, and the sibling take_fx_get_enabled exists, so the description does not disambiguate which FX domain this operates on.

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 guidance on when to use this versus track_fx_set_enabled (the setter) or take_fx_get_enabled/take_fx_set_enabled. No prerequisites or context are given, only a statement of the return value.

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