get_fx_parameters

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

readOnlyHint already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: the value format (0-1 vs displayed), that switches/menus expose position counts and named options, and that parameter counts can be very large. It does not describe pagination behavior for the limit/offset pair.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and each adding a distinct piece of information (return shape, switch/menu behavior, search rationale). No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the returned value format and switch/menu representation, and annotations cover read-only safety. The main gap is pagination behavior for limit/offset, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 67% (mid), and the description explains the search parameter's narrowing behavior, mapping meaningfully onto one param. However, limit and offset carry no schema description and the description does not compensate for them, leaving pagination semantics 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (an FX's parameters), and clarifies what the listing contains (current 0-1 value plus displayed value). It is clearly a read tool against siblings like set_fx_parameter/set_fx_parameters, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 closing sentence implies usage ('Synths can have hundreds of parameters, so search narrows it') which hints at when to use search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to the sibling set/update tools that modify the same parameters.

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