envelope_get_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the read-only nature ('Read'), a cap on results (max_results=2000) to prevent context blow-up, and refers to fx_get_params for obtaining FX parameters. It does not cover error behavior or what happens if the envelope is missing, but the key behavioral aspects are disclosed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a list of envelope names, a note about FX mode, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of two modes and lack of output schema, the description covers input semantics thoroughly and hints at return limits. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned points (e.g., array of time-value pairs), which would help agents anticipate the output. Overall, it is largely complete but has one 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?

The description provides detailed semantics for each parameter in the Args section, far beyond the schema titles and defaults. It explains the role of track_index, envelope_name (with list of valid names), fx_index and param_index (with -1 meaning track mode), and max_results as a cap. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reads automation points from a track or FX parameter envelope. It lists specific track envelope names and distinguishes between track and FX modes, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like envelope_add_points.

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 provides clear context on when to use track envelopes vs FX parameter envelopes, explaining that envelope_name is ignored when FX parameters are set. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., envelope_add_points for writing) or when not to use this tool, so guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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