list_realtime_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not specify ordering, inclusion of inactive effects, empty-chain behavior, or error handling for invalid track IDs.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The Args section is clear and avoids repetition of schema details beyond the essential semantics.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the input contract and the high-level return shape. Minor gaps like exact response formatting or behavior on empty chains do not prevent correct invocation.

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?

The input schema only declares track_id as an integer, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that track_id comes from project_get_info's track list and that -2 targets the Master bus. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs.

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 names a specific resource ('realtime effect chain on a track or the Master bus') with a clear action, and explicitly lists the output fields (index, name, active state). It differentiates itself from siblings by scoping to realtime effects and referencing remove_realtime_effect/set_realtime_effect_active, making its role unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it returns indices specifically intended for remove_realtime_effect/set_realtime_effect_active, and explains the special -2 sentinel for the Master bus. It does not explicitly contrast with list_effects or other listing tools, but the realtime-effect scope makes the intended use clear.

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