envelope_get_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well by stating that it reads points, describes unit conversion from REAPER's internal scale, and explains max_results as a default 2000-point cap to prevent context blow-up. It does not cover permissions or the exact returned structure, but the key behavior and safety constraints 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 front-loaded with purpose, then structured by envelope type, value units, and arguments. It is somewhat verbose because the FX parameter routing is repeated in both prose and Args, and the full track-envelope name list takes space, but the content is useful and organized.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is quite complete for invocation: it covers both envelope modes, parameter meanings, value units, and result capping. It stops short of describing the returned point structure, which would help since no output schema exists, but the essential context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all five parameters are documented in the Args section. It explains sentinel values (-1 for fx_index/param_index to target a track envelope), the envelope_name default behavior when FX params are set, and max_results semantics.

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 states a specific read operation, 'Read automation points from a track or FX parameter envelope,' naming both the verb and the resource. It clearly distinguishes track envelopes from FX parameter envelopes and separates this tool from write-oriented siblings like envelope_add_points and envelope_clear_range.

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 routing guidance: for FX parameter envelopes, pass fx_index and param_index, and envelope_name is ignored. It also points to fx_get_params for obtaining those indexes. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus read-only alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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