get_fx_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly. The description mentions returned data (names, indices, values) but does not disclose any side effects or safety aspects.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, communicates core purpose and output content efficiently.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain the return structure (e.g., array of parameter objects). It only mentions what is included but not how it is organized. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal and leaves gaps in understanding the response format.

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%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The tool description does not compensate: it does not explain what track_index and fx_index represent (e.g., zero-based?), or how to obtain them. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to correctly populate the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'parameters for an FX plugin', and specifies the returned content: names, indices, and current values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fx_parameter (which modifies) and list_track_fx (which lists FX, not parameters).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fx_parameter or list_track_fx. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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