list_effect_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that values are plugin-reported, that the extraction works uniformly across Builtin/VST3/LV2/AudioUnit, and that it returns human-formatted current values. Read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not stated explicitly, and error behavior is not described.

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 appropriately front-loaded with purpose and then structured Args. The plugin examples are illustrative and useful, though slightly longer than strictly necessary; they reinforce why parameter names/ranges need not be guessed.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, output fields, source of both parameters, and the Master bus special case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, but the description provides rich parameter semantics: track_id comes from project_get_info's track list, -2 means Master bus, and index is the position in the chain from list_realtime_effects. An agent can resolve both arguments without external clues.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a realtime effect's real, plugin-reported parameters'. It enumerates the exact returned fields (name, units, min/max/default/current value, formatted current value), and the realtime scope distinguishes it from sibling list-style tools like list_effects and list_effect_presets.

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?

It gives clear workflow context by sourcing track_id from project_get_info's track list, index from list_realtime_effects, and documents the -2 Master bus sentinel. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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