mixer_fx_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and adds the sentinel convention (-1 for empty slots) and fixed slot count, which are useful beyond the schema. It does not mention invalid-track behavior or side-effect guarantees, but 'List' strongly implies non-mutating behavior.

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 wasted words. It conveys the action, target resource, and a key output convention in under fifteen words, which is ideal for agent consumption.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies what is returned and how empty slots are represented. It could still include valid track bounds or an example, but given the low complexity, the missing details are relatively minor.

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 provides only a required integer named 'track' with 0% description coverage. The tool description clarifies that the parameter refers to a mixer track, adding domain meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Track' title. However, it does not state the track indexing convention, valid range, or whether the track argument is zero-based or one-based, leaving a notable gap.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('plugin IDs in the 10 FX slots of a mixer track'), and an important output detail ('-1 = empty'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic mixer or plugin listing tools and tells an agent exactly what the tool returns.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools such as plugin_list_mixer_track or mixer_track_info. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection conditions, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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