Get FX parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by warning that values are 'normalized as the plugin reports them' — a genuine caveat. But it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (the 'List' verb implies it), nor does it explain edge behavior such as invalid indices or whether an FX with zero parameters returns an empty list.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the operation and its output fields, the second adds the normalization caveat. The signal is front-loaded and every clause contributes.

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 low-complexity tool (2 simple required integer params, no nested objects, no enums), the description covers the return fields (index, name, value, min, max) and value semantics well enough for an agent to call it and interpret results. It leaves minor gaps: no explicit statement that the call has no side effects and no mention of behavior when an index is out of range, but these are matters of edge-case robustness rather than core usability.

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%, so the description must compensate, but the parameter names (track_index, fx_index) are already self-explanatory and the phrase 'an FX on a track' loosely maps the two indices to their roles. The description adds no indexing details (e.g., 0-based, which the schema's minimum: 0 confirms) and does not clarify the order of track vs FX indexing. It provides only marginal value over the schema.

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 ('List') with a distinct resource ('parameters of an FX on a track') and enumerates the expected return fields (index, name, current value, min, max). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like reaper_list_track_fx (which lists FX objects, not their parameters), reaper_set_fx_param (a write counterpart), and reaper_set_track_volume (a different resource entirely).

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 usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool reads parameters, so one reaches for it when needing current FX parameter state, and reaper_set_fx_param when a change is wanted. However, it never names the alternative read tool, does not exclude any sibling explicitly, and does not mention prerequisites such as the track/FX existing or 0-based indexing.

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