get_fx_param_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, but does not mention that it is read-only, any side effects, limitations, or return behavior. The name implies a read operation, but the description adds no explicit transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core purpose efficiently and has no unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks essential context. It doesn't specify what 'parameters' includes (names, values, metadata), nor does it clarify usage relative to sibling FX tools. While output schema may cover return values, the description misses opportunities to provide an agent with decision context.

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%, and the description does not explain the two required parameters (track_index, fx_index) or how they identify the target FX. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a list of all parameters for an FX.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'list of all parameters' are specific, and it distinguishes from get_fx_param (which implies a single parameter) by including 'all'. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or mention the required track/fx indices.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fx_param or set_fx_param. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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