list_fl_plugins

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description confirms discovery/read behavior and clarifies the index domain, but it does not add much beyond that about errors, empty results, or other runtime behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the two operating modes without waste. Every clause contributes to selecting the right kind and index 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 a simple read-only list tool with safety annotations and a mostly self-explanatory schema, the description is sufficiently complete to support correct invocation. It could still say more about the returned shape or whether missing/out-of-range indexes produce errors, but those are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description usefully clarifies that "kind=effect" applies to a mixer track index while "kind=instrument" applies to a global channel index. That mapping is important because the schema's index description alone is ambiguous across the two kinds.

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 uses a specific verb ("Discover") and resource ("loaded effects" / "instrument") and distinguishes the two modes by mixer track versus global channel index. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_fl_parameters or list_fl_tracks.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to discover effects on a mixer track or an instrument at a global channel index. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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