Fl Send Cc To Plugin

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 says 'Forward' but does not indicate if this alters persistent state, if it requires the plugin to be focused, or what side effects might occur. The description is minimal and leaves ambiguity about the operation's impact.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical qualifier. This is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description just barely covers the essential action. It lacks details on value ranges, channel mapping, or return values, which would be needed for a fully autonomous agent. For a simple MIDI forward, it might suffice, but gaps remain.

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 three parameters (cc, value, channel) but the description only indirectly references 'MIDI CC' which hints at 'cc'. There is no explanation of 'value' or 'channel' ranges or meanings. With zero parameter descriptions, the agent must infer from context, making this weak.

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 'Forward' and the resource 'MIDI CC' to the 'focused plugin window', making the action specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that might also send MIDI data, though the focus on plugin window and CC is fairly unique.

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?

It mentions the condition 'for plugins that learn/respond to CCs', which gives some indication of when to use it. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like parameter automation. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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