get_fx_param_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: it is non-mutating (does not create or arm) and it enumerates the returned data (state, inclusive-range points, neighbors, automation items, duplicate times, content hash). It omits auth requirements, error conditions, and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the read-only, non-creating nature is front-loaded before the return-value enumeration. Every clause earns its place.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain parameter selection and any constraints. It covers returns reasonably but leaves the bulk of the parameter surface undocumented, which is a substantial completeness gap.

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 only 31% across 13 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate but mentions none of them. Critical inputs such as fx_scope (the only enum), start_time/end_time, param_index, and include_neighbors are left entirely to the bare schema, leaving roughly nine parameters effectively 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 ('Read') and resource ('FX-parameter envelope'), and the clause 'without creating or arming it' signals it is the read counterpart to write/automation tools. It does not name a sibling explicitly (e.g. write_automation, get_fx_parameters), so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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?

Implies usage via 'one existing envelope' and 'without creating or arming it', suggesting it is for inspecting an already-existing envelope. However, it never names the alternative write tool or states a precondition, so the when-to-use-vs-siblings decision is left to inference.

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