Fx Stack List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose payload contents (notes and per-machine cost) plus the conditional scope expansion. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are ordered, or how cost is computed — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the scope of what is listed. Minor awkwardness from the stray line break and the concentrated clause 'the song's when project is given' slightly hurts readability but nothing is wasted.

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 shape need not be described; the description still adds what each entry contains (notes, machine cost). For a one-optional-param listing tool this is close to sufficient, missing only a note on safety/read-only nature.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the semantic effect of 'project' — that providing it widens the listing to the song's own stacks. It stops short of specifying the expected project identifier format.

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 the resource precisely (saved effect stacks) and enumerates its categories — built-in, library, and project-specific — which distinguishes it from siblings like fx_stack_save, fx_stack_load, and fx_stack_measure. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'when project is given' implies the effect of supplying the optional parameter, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus fx_stack_load or presets_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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