get_lmms_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the returned information (version, path, plugin availability) and adds useful nuance with 'detected' and 'actually available.' However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe failure behavior, though the name and 'info' imply no side effects.

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 three short sentences, with each sentence earning its place: it states the operation, lists the specific output details, and gives a direct usage guideline. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it is a simple read-only info operation, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool shows and why to use it, though it could briefly mention that it does not modify the project or LMMS environment.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies: the description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist.

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 retrieves information about the installed LMMS application and lists specific details it returns: version, installation path, and available plugins. It is clear and specific, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool list_available_plugins, which likely overlaps in the plugin-availability aspect.

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 says 'Use this to check whether a plugin is supported before using it,' which gives a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as list_available_plugins.

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