Fx Stack Load

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The strongest disclosure is the implicit one that this tool does not apply the stack itself ('ready for ... fx_add one by one'), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about what happens when the name is not found, whether lookup falls back beyond the named project, or that the operation is a non-mutating read.

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?

Roughly 35 words with no filler, and the return-content summary comes first. The structure is a noun-phrase fragment rather than an action statement, and the trailing project clause is tacked on without a clear connector, which slightly weakens front-loading.

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 explaining the return shape in prose is redundant and consumes most of the description's limited space. What is actually missing is the decision context: why load instead of list or measure, and what happens on a name miss. Adequate for a simple two-parameter lookup, but it does not fully cover the sibling-selection and failure-mode gaps.

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 for both parameters. It does clarify the optional 'project' parameter as a scoping hint ('look in that song's stacks first'), implying preferential lookup within that project. The required 'name' parameter is never explained — no indication of how names are matched, whether they must already exist, or whether they are case-sensitive.

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 specifically (a saved effect stack) and enumerates its contents: chain JSON, notes, and per-machine cost. The parenthetical 'ready for live_track fx= or fx_add one by one' usefully disambiguates this as a retrieval rather than an apply operation, separating it from fx_add. It stops short of a clean verb-first statement and overlaps with what fx_stack_measure presumably reports.

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?

Implicit guidance exists: the chain output is framed as input for live_track fx= or fx_add, which tells the agent this is a read-then-apply step. The project note also gives a lookup precedence rule ('look in that song's stacks first'). But there is no explicit comparison with fx_stack_list, fx_stack_measure, or fx_stack_save, so when to choose this over those siblings is inferred.

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