apply_limiter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It honestly states it adds a limiter (write operation), but does not disclose potential side effects like whether existing master FX are replaced or how many limiters can be added.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of parameter effects and revert/replace behavior, but is minimally adequate for a simple add-effect tool.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions for threshold_db or release_ms). The description does not explain these parameters, only saying to use them after adding. It adds no 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 clearly states the tool adds 'ReaLimit' to the master track, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_fx' or 'add_master_fx' by specifying the exact limiter, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 provides a clear follow-up action: after adding, use 'set_master_fx_parameter' with indices from 'get_fx_parameters'. It implies when to use this tool (before setting parameters) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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