Fl Browser

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

The description discloses important side effects: load can open a plugin in a new channel or load a sample into the selected channel, and preview auditions the current item. It also mentions the 'stuck' reporting behavior when selection does not move, giving good transparency without annotations.

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 well-structured, covering the main action, optional modes, and a notable edge case in a few sentences. No redundant or vague wording is present.

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 is largely complete for the tool's core usage, including side effects and the empty-path root behavior. It does not specify the return format or explain max_items, but these are minor gaps given the otherwise clear description and existing output schema.

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 path (empty means root), load, and preview, but max_items is not described at all. Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions, the omission of max_items leaves part of the tool's behavior underspecified.

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's primary purpose: navigating FL Studio's browser by listing folder children. It also specifies optional load and preview behaviors, making it distinct from sibling tools that handle other FL Studio operations.

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 explains how to use the path, load, and preview parameters, including the effect of loading different item types. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the browser-specific scope is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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