Fx Help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the informational nature of the tool and adds that automatable params are listed per type, but never explicitly states it is non-mutating or side-effect-free. For a help tool the risk is low, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 terse clauses, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by the filter clause. No wasted words, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not fully cover the project parameter or clarify list-vs-detail behavior, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the type parameter's purpose and syntax (type=<name> returns a single entry), but the project parameter is left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific resource (effect types) and what it returns (default params, automatable params per type). Combined with the name fx_help, an agent can tell this is a reference/lookup tool distinct from mutators like fx_add, fx_set, and fx_remove. The telegraphic phrasing keeps it from being fully explicit about being a help operation.

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?

"type=<name> for one" gives an implied usage pattern (omit type to list all, supply it to get one), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and no when-not guidance. The routing intent is inferable but not stated.

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