scan_fx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: read-only, restricted to FX already loaded rather than the plugin library, and an explicit anti-pattern to avoid. It does not describe reply size or failure behavior beyond what the schema already covers (track_contains erroring on multiple matches), which keeps 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then safety, then the exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only enumeration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and the key misuse case adequately. It stops short of describing the return shape or how the much-larger include_values reply is structured, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% with five well-documented parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds one semantic point — omitting the track selector means the whole project — and says nothing about include_values, target_track_guid, or use_selected_track beyond what the schema already states.

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 (enumerate) plus resource (FX and their parameters) and scope (one track or the whole project). It also distinguishes itself from the installed-plugin library and from the fx add resolver, so an agent can place it among siblings like get_fx_parameters and fx without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when (enumerate loaded FX), a how (omit the track selector for the whole project), and a hard when-not with the named alternative: 'Never use it to check whether a plugin exists before adding one — that is the fx add resolver's job.' Nothing 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.