track_fx_get_num_params

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that. The description adds no further behavioral context such as behavior for invalid track_index/fx_index values or whether hidden parameters are counted, but it does not contradict the annotation.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation, and the required indices can be inferred from the schema and tool name. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value format or edge-case behavior, and it does not clarify track versus take FX context.

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 compensate by explaining track_index and fx_index, but it does not. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the phrase 'FX plugin' hints at fx_index, but there is no detail on indexing order, zero-based indexing, or how the track is identified.

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 action ('Get') and a clear object ('the number of parameters for an FX plugin'). It is readable and unambiguous about the fundamental operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish track FX from take FX where the sibling take_fx_get_num_params exists.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_fx_get_param_name, track_fx_get_count, or take_fx_get_num_params. The intended usage context is only implied by the tool name, not stated in the description.

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