get_effect_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read, and 'all effects' defines scope, but the description does not clarify whether disabled/bypassed effects are included, how invalid target indices are handled, or whether the operation is read-only in an explicit way. It is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves some behavior to inference.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a minimal parameter block with no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the resource type, the two accepted target locations, and the meaning of each argument. It does not discuss error behavior or result ordering, but given the output schema and very simple scope, the essential context is present and only minor details are left out.

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 provides 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It defines target_type as 'track' or 'mixer' and target_index as a track index or mixer channel number, giving agents the key semantic constraints the schema omits. It stops short of specifying exact indexing conventions or whether the values are case-sensitive, but it substantially compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('List all effects') on a specific resource ('a track's or mixer channel's effect chain'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like add_effect, remove_effect, and toggle_effect. It is specific, actionable, and not a tautology of the tool name.

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 makes the tool's scope clear by naming both target types, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions. An agent can infer the use case, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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