List track FX

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a listing operation and names the returned fields, which implies a non-mutating read. It does not explicitly disclose side-effect safety, error behavior, or what happens with an invalid track_index, but for a simple list operation this is a minimal but acceptable level of 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the operation, the target, and the output fields in a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is mostly complete and provides the essential return shape. However, because the schema offers no parameter documentation and there is no output schema, the description should have explained track_index semantics and perhaps noted that the operation has no side effects. These omissions leave minor but real gaps.

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 has no parameter description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description says 'on a track' but does not explain what track_index means, whether it is zero-based, or how it relates to the project's tracks. The meaning is somewhat inferable from the parameter name and the minimum value of 0, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond 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') and specifies the resource ('FX on a track') plus the information returned (index, name, enabled state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reaper_add_fx, reaper_get_fx_params, and reaper_set_fx_param.

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 verb 'List' implies this is the read-only operation for inspecting FX, and sibling names suggest alternatives for adding or modifying FX. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus get_fx_params or set_fx_param, so guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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