fl_list_mixer_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, performance caveats, or that it queries live state). It is consistent with annotations, so no penalty, but also no added value.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the useful data fields. There is zero filler and it immediately communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 low-complexity read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, this description is basically enough. It could mention that it returns all tracks or hint at the optional filtering params, but the existing structured fields already cover those.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (only_used, max_tracks, include_peaks) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('mixer tracks'), plus the kinds of data returned ('current levels, selection state, loaded effects'). This is clear and mostly distinguishes from the singular inspection sibling (fl_inspect_mixer_track), though it does not explicitly say 'all tracks' or name that alternative.

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 implies usage when a read-only overview of mixer tracks is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with fl_inspect_mixer_track or other listing tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the tool name and sibling list make the common case understandable.

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