get_fx_params

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds behavioral context by emphasizing parameters are decoded by name, not as opaque 0-1 values. This goes beyond the annotation, though it omits details like error handling for missing tracks.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key behavioral trait (decoding by name). No wasted words.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), but the description omits parameter explanation and usage context. It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness regarding input and error scenarios.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'track' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'track' parameter at all, leaving its semantics completely undocumented.

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 decodes FX chain parameters by name (e.g., compressor ratio), distinguishing it from opaque 0-1 values. This verb+resource combination is specific and differentiates from siblings like set_fx_param and add_fx_by_name.

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 implies use when needing parameter names rather than raw values, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_fx_param. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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