fx_get_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (names, enabled, presets, param counts) but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid track_index, whether the chain is returned in a specific order, or whether it includes only active FX. For a getter with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the parameter clarification. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but adds the -1 master track detail. No wasted sentences.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the parameter and the return content. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, how presets are represented) or error behavior, and with no annotations the safety profile is unstated. Given the tool's simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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. It does explain the only parameter: '0-based track index, or -1 for the master track.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Track Index' title. It doesn't document edge cases like out-of-range indices, but for a single parameter it is mostly sufficient.

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 verb and resource: 'Get FX chain for a track' and lists the returned data (names, enabled, presets, param counts). It is clear what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like fx_get_instrument or fx_get_params, but the resource (chain for a track) is distinct enough.

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 implies usage by specifying the track_index parameter and the -1 master track convention. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fx_get_params or fx_get_instrument, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., track must exist).

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