track_fx_get_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it defines the return shape (fx array with index/name/enabled/offline plus fx_count), clarifies that 'enabled' is False when bypassed, and scopes the chain it reads. It does not state ordering guarantees or behavior on an invalid index, keeping it out of the top tier.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Returns block that earns its place because no output schema exists. No filler, though the return detail is slightly dense in a single run-on sentence.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply the return contract and safety profile; it does describe the returned fields and scoping well. The only real gap is the undocumented track_index parameter and lack of any error/edge-case note.

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% and the single parameter (track_index) is never described in the description. The phrase 'on a track' hints that track_index selects the target track, but no format, indexing base, or error behavior is given, so the description only marginally compensates for the schema 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 list of all FX plugins on a track') and adds a scope qualifier distinguishing it from input/record and master monitoring FX. It does not name the obvious sibling (take_fx_get_list) or otherwise explicitly differentiate beyond the scope note, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the scoping note ('Normal FX chain only') tells the agent what this covers, which implicitly excludes record/input FX. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of track_fx_get_count or take_fx_get_list as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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