track_fx_get_param

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact return shape: an object with value, min, and max. It does not discuss error behavior or out-of-range indexing, but for a simple getter this is reasonable.

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 brief, front-loaded with the action, and contains only the essential return information. No redundant phrasing or filler is present.

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 straightforward indexed getter, the description provides the action and return shape, and the annotation covers read-only safety. It lacks indexing conventions (e.g., zero-based vs one-based) and potential error conditions, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 description does not explain track_index, fx_index, or param_index. The parameter names are self-explanatory within the tool's domain, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already exposes, and it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear, specific operation: retrieving the value of a particular FX parameter, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like track_fx_get_param_name or track_fx_set_param by focusing on the value plus min/max. The resource and action are unambiguous, and the tool name reinforces the track-FX scope.

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 implies its use when a caller needs a parameter value from an FX plugin, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over take_fx_get_param, track_fx_get_param_name, or set-oriented alternatives. Usage is inferred from the verb and resource rather than explicitly guided.

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