device_inspect_plugin

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

The description declares the tool as read-only and explains the return behavior, including both success (plug-in identity and parameters) and failure (available=false with reason) cases. This provides good transparency about what the tool does and does not do, compensating for the lack of 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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the most critical information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose and read-only nature in the first, usage context and return value in the second.

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?

While the description covers purpose, usage, and return behavior, it fails to document the input parameters, which are essential for using the tool. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a significant gap, making the tool less usable.

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 does not explain the meaning of the two required integer parameters (track_index, device_index). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on how to populate these indices, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 performs read-only VST/AU plug-in discovery for a device, with a specific use case of identifying third-party plug-ins independently of user-edited names. This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from broader sibling tools like device_get_parameters.

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 explicitly states when to use ('when identifying third-party plug-ins without relying on user-edited device names'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the guidance is specific enough.

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