list_available_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the list is dynamically detected and includes both built-in and custom plugins. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but does not mention potential performance costs, plugin availability after scanning, or whether VSTs are included/excluded. It does not contradict 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope detail and a practical usage hint. No filler or redundancy; each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is largely complete for a zero-parameter list tool, especially with an output schema present. It covers plugin scope and downstream usage. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating whether VSTs (handled by scan_vst_directory) are included, which could matter for an agent deciding between list_available_plugins and scan_vst_directory.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned list contains and how custom plugin names can be reused, which is the relevant semantic context.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ALL plugins installed in your LMMS'), with concrete scope ('built-in instruments/effects' + 'custom plugins the user added'). This distinguishes it from sibling scan_vst_directory, which handles a different plugin source (VST directory). The phrase 'dynamically detected' adds precision about how the list is obtained.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to discover custom plugin names for add_instrument_track / add_effect. It gives actionable context ('Custom plugins can be used directly by name') but does not explicitly state exclusions or directly compare with sibling alternatives such as scan_vst_directory.

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