track_fx_get_param_name

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a non-destructive getter, and the description agrees. It adds the return concept of 'name' but no additional behavioral details such as whether indices are zero-based, what happens for an invalid index, or the returned string format.

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 filler. Every word carries meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description needs to provide more context. It does not specify the return type, indexing convention, or how it differs from take_fx_get_param_name, so an agent may not be able to invoke it correctly in ambiguous situations.

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 beyond the generic phrase 'FX parameter.' The parameter names are self-descriptive, but there is no information about index base, ordering, or required value ranges.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the name of an FX parameter.' It is clear but generic—it could equally describe take_fx_get_param_name, so it does not explicitly distinguish this track-FX tool from its take-FX sibling.

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 track_fx_get_param_name instead of related tools such as take_fx_get_param_name, track_fx_get_param, or track_fx_get_name. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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