NewVSTs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that identification can happen by slug or by name, but says nothing about how candidates are ranked, how many come back, or what 'similar' means operationally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the qualifier in parentheses. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers the intent but omits how filters combine, what the default limit is, and what the result set looks like. Adequate to start a call, but not enough to predict the response.

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 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter axes (format/OS/price) without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules, and never mentions limit, type, or free_only, so it does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find similar or alternative plugins') anchored to an input plugin identified by slug or name, which is more informative than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_plugins or get_plugin, so the agent must infer that this is the similarity/recommendation path rather than a generic query.

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 phrasing 'to a given plugin' implies the precondition that the caller already has a plugin in hand, which is genuine usage context. However, no alternative tool is named, no when-not condition is given, and nothing says what to do when the slug is unknown versus when the name is ambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses sort order (soonest end date) and the returned fields (sale price, regular price, discount, days left), which annotations do not convey.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and motive, then the sort order and return fields. Zero waste for what it covers.

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 7-param read-only query with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sort, and return fields adequately, and the schema carries parameter detail. Minor gap: the default within_days=7 window is not surfaced in prose, but the schema documents it.

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 coverage is 86%, so parameters like os, format, free_only, and within_days are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Active audio plugin intro/launch deals') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_new_releases and search_plugins by narrowly scoping to time-limited deals. Clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

Usage is implied — a user wanting deals ending soon — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor any mention of the sibling tools as alternatives (e.g. get_new_releases). Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the ordering guarantee ("newest first") and clarifies that both announcements and releases count, which is useful. It says nothing about how many results come back by default or how filters combine, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the ordering. Nothing is wasted and no clause is redundant.

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?

With eight parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is functionally adequate for calling the tool but leaves gaps: it never indicates what a result entry contains or how the filters interact. For a filtering tool with this many optional parameters, a short note on return contents would have been warranted.

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 88%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the days default of 7. The description restates the days default but adds no filter semantics (e.g., whether os/format are hard filters or how type accepts multiple tags). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (audio plugins) and a precise scope: announced/released within the last N days, newest first. An agent can tell this is a recency/novelty listing rather than a general catalog search. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_plugins or get_deals_ending_soon.

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?

Usage is implied by the temporal framing ("last N days (default 7 = this week)"), which signals a browse-what's-new scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. No alternative sibling is named, so an agent must infer whether search_plugins with a date filter would be equivalent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description earns credit for disclosing the return payload (price, deal end, formats, OS, CLAP/Linux support, features, videos, similar plugins, buy link). It omits error/not-found behavior, so not a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited field list; dense but every item is informative about the response. No wasted framing or filler.

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 return contents are reasonably covered, which matters since there is no output schema. However, the identifier parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap for a lookup tool where the caller must decide between 'name' and 'slug'.

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?

Two parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about them — notably whether 'name' or 'slug' is preferred, or which wins if both are supplied. Since the schema provides no meaning at all, the description should have compensated and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full details for one plugin') and enumerates the returned data, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_plugins (list) or find_alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the follow-up call to search_plugins after a slug/name is known; nothing in the text says so.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful context by naming the data source, mentioning live prices and intro deals, and saying results are links to newvsts.com, though it does not cover result ordering or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the filters and return type. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause contributes useful context.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description says it returns links but does not describe the result shape, fields, or ordering. Annotations cover safety details well, but sibling routing and return-value expectations remain thin.

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 88%, so most parameter meaning is already supplied by the schema. The description only summarizes filter categories that the schema already documents and does not add syntax, defaults, or other semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: search NewVSTs' tracker of recently released audio plugins, including formats and price context. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_new_releases or get_deals_ending_soon.

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 lists filter dimensions such as keyword, type, format, OS, and price, which implies filtered discovery usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not route the agent away from overlapping siblings.

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