fx_show_ui

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the UI window is blocking, what happens if the FX has no GUI, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency but falls short.

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 extremely concise with no redundant text. It front-loads the core action and lists arguments clearly. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits important context such as the return value (if any), error conditions, or whether the UI opens immediately. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 explains both parameters ('0-based track index', '0-based FX chain index'), adding meaning beyond the schema which only declares types. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though more detail (e.g., where to find these indices) would improve it.

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 verb ('Open') and the resource ('FX plugin UI window'), and the args specify the track and FX indices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fx_add or fx_remove which perform different actions on FX.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when would an agent choose this over fx_get_params or fx_set_preset). No prerequisites or context for invocation are mentioned.

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