list_plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds useful scope context — it returns only plug-ins Live can actually load, grouped with a vendor folder — but says nothing about ordering, volume, or behavior when the catalog is empty.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the filtering behavior appended. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler wording.

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?

This is a simple, zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Purpose, scope, and query semantics are all present, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single optional 'query' parameter has no description in the schema, so the description carries the burden — and it does, stating that the query matches either plug-in name or vendor. That is meaningful semantics an agent could not get from the schema, though substring vs. exact matching and case sensitivity remain unstated.

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 and resource ('List installed VST3/AU plug-ins Live can load') and scopes it to loadable plug-ins with a vendor folder, which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like load_plugin or discovery siblings like scan_plugin_catalog. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the wording.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration context ('plug-ins Live can load') and by the note that the query filters by name or vendor. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_plugins or scan_plugin_catalog, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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