sonic_list_fx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It simply says 'List bundled Sonic Pi FX names' without explaining whether this operation is read-only, whether it depends on a running Sonic Pi instance, or how the `limit` and `root_path` parameters affect behavior. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's primary function. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, though it may be too brief for the parameters involved. Still, it is properly concise for the core 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?

Given the existence of two optional parameters and a lack of annotations, the description is not complete. It does not explain the role of `root_path` or `limit`, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but additional context is still needed for a complete tool definition.

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 either parameter (`limit` or `root_path`). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself is empty of descriptions. The tool cannot be used correctly without further parameter information.

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 exactly what the tool does: it lists bundled Sonic Pi FX names. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like sonic_list_samples and sonic_list_synths, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and sibling context make it obvious that this is for FX listing. The usage is implied but not explicitly stated, so it earns a 3.

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