track_fx_get_enabled

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

The description adds the return format: an object with a 'ret' boolean field. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, providing concrete information about what the caller receives. It aligns with the annotation (getter implies read-only) and adds useful behavioral detail without contradicting anything.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear return description. Every word earns its place with no fluff, making it appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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?

The description covers the core action and return type, but lacks parameter explanation, error behavior, and does not clarify that the FX is on a track specifically. Even for a simple getter, an agent cannot confidently determine correct indices or know what happens on invalid input without additional context, making it incomplete.

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 description does not explain the meaning or format of track_index and fx_index. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The parameter names suggest their roles, but the description omits any detail about indexing, zero-based convention, or which FX chain they refer to.

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 ('Get') and a resource ('enabled state of an FX plugin'). It clearly distinguishes from the setter tools (track_fx_set_enabled) by the verb. However, it does not explicitly specify that this is for track FX as opposed to take FX, relying on the tool name for that distinction. Thus it is clear but slightly incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like track_fx_set_enabled or take_fx_get_enabled. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or contexts. An agent would have to infer the appropriate usage from the name and surrounding context rather than from the description.

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