get_fx_preset

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and names the returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens with the many targeting parameters. Multiple conflicting target selectors are left completely undisclosed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key information front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given 9 parameters, but there is no wasted wording.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not explain the target-selection model, the dry_run semantics, or error conditions, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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 only 56%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With 9 overlapping selectors (track, track_contains, target_track_guid, use_selected_track, fx_guid, fx_index, fx_scope, fx_name_contains) plus dry_run, the agent gets no help on precedence or which combinations are valid.

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 (loaded FX host preset name, index and count), which cleanly separates it from the sibling set_fx_preset. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_fx_parameters or scan_fx, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_fx_parameters or set_fx_preset. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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