track_fx_get_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details: the returned object contains an 'fx' array with index, name, enabled, offline fields, plus fx_count, and that 'enabled' is False when bypassed. It also discloses scope limitations. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a reliable expectation of the result.

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 and front-loaded: the primary action is stated in the first sentence, followed by a concise return specification and scope exclusions. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one integer parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and scope well. The main omission is the lack of documentation for track_index semantics, which prevents it from being fully complete. It is still sufficient for most agents to invoke correctly.

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 explain the track_index parameter, but it only says 'on a track' without defining the indexing scheme (e.g., zero-based), range, or error behavior. The parameter name is self-explanatory at a high level, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 list of all FX plugins on a track.' It also distinguishes itself from take-FX tools by explicitly saying it covers the normal FX chain only, not input/record FX or master monitoring FX. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from siblings like take_fx_get_list.

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 gives clear scope context by saying it returns the normal FX chain only and excludes input/record FX and master monitoring FX. This tells the agent when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as take_fx_get_list for take FX chains. Overall, the guidance is clear but lacks explicit sibling routing.

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