track_fx_get_num_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention any permissions, side effects, or return format, and provides no behavioral traits beyond the basic action. This is a minimal disclosure for a getter tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous text. It is appropriately concise, though it could have included a brief parameter hint without becoming verbose, so it is not perfectly sized for the tool's needs.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value looks like, what track_index and fx_index refer to, or how it differs from take_fx_get_num_params. An agent would need substantial external knowledge to call this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for two required parameters (track_index and fx_index), and the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how to supply them. An agent must infer everything from parameter names alone, which is inadequate given the complete lack of 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 ('Get') and resource ('number of parameters for an FX plugin'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling take_fx_get_num_params or clarify that this is for track FX rather than take FX, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 tool versus alternatives such as take_fx_get_num_params or other track_fx_* tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving context and prerequisites entirely implied.

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