Fl Plugin Info

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether a plugin must exist at the target location, or what happens on invalid targets. The word 'Info' weakly suggests non-destructive behavior, but that is not sufficient.

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 one concise sentence with no filler words and directly lists the returned information. It is slightly telegraphic and relies on a colon list, but it remains compact and reasonably scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return expectations; it lists the fields but not their structure or types. More importantly, it omits the parameter selection logic and error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a two-parameter API.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description does not clearly map 'channel' and 'mixer track+slot' to the `index` and `slot` parameters. It is unclear what `index` refers to, how `slot` default -1 selects a channel, or what values are expected.

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 that the tool returns plugin information (name, preset, param/preset counts, pad count) at a channel or mixer track+slot, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fl_plugin_params or fl_plugin_preset. However, the phrase 'slot -1' is cryptic and no explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve' is used.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of fl_plugin_params, fl_plugin_preset, fl_plugin_pads, or fl_param_scan. The listed return fields imply a summary use case, but the description never states when this tool should be preferred.

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