track_fx_get_param_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about out-of-range index handling, error behavior, or the return type (a string name). For a zero-annotation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere rather than being ideal.

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, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool confidently. It should at least clarify index conventions and the return value.

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?

All 3 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing to compensate. Track/fx/param index semantics (0-based? bounds?) must be guessed entirely from parameter names.

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 (the name of an FX parameter), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from track_fx_get_param (which returns a value) and take_fx_get_param_name (take scope) via its name, but does not explicitly articulate those distinctions.

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 like track_fx_get_param or take_fx_get_param_name, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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