live_plugin_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses a genuine upstream limitation ('Studio One cannot list a plug-in's parameters'), explains the workaround source for names (presets and Studio One's remote-control map), and scopes reliability to PreSonus plug-ins. It does not say anything about read-only safety or what happens if a named parameter does not exist, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and the example value formats ("2.0:1", "-12.0 dB"), which earn their space. The plug-in-coverage caveat follows logically rather than padding the opening.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does by listing the five fields per parameter. Given no annotations and four parameters, the definition is nearly complete; the only unaddressed item is the `channel` identifier format and behaviour when a requested parameter name is invalid.

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 description coverage is 50%: `filter` and `params` are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces `params` with the non-PreSonus use case. However, neither `channel` nor `slot` has any schema description, and only `slot`'s provenance is explained ('from live_inserts'); the format of `channel` (name vs. index) is never addressed anywhere.

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 names the specific resource ('Parameters of one plug-in on a channel in the running Studio One') and enumerates what is returned (name, value, display text, range, normalised value), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling live_set_plugin_param and from live_inserts. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It tells the agent where the required `slot` comes from ('slot from live_inserts') and gives a conditional fallback: for non-PreSonus plug-ins, pass names in `params`. That is real routing guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g. versus live_plugins or live_set_plugin_param).

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