get_plugin_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially discloses the return shape ('id, name, value 0..1, value text, ...') and clarifies that `owner` can be a channel or effect slot, but it does not confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or whether the call has 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 short and mostly front-loaded, but it is a sentence fragment with an ellipsis that signals an incomplete enumeration. It avoids waste but reads as under-specified rather than polished.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to identify a valid `owner`, whether the operation is read-only, or the full structure of the returned parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that `owner` refers to a channel id or effect slot id, which adds real meaning beyond the bare integer schema, but it does not explain ID formats or how to obtain valid IDs.

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 identifies the resource clearly: the parameters of the plugin associated with a channel or effect slot `owner`. It lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from siblings like `list_plugins` or `set_plugin_param`, but an agent can infer it is a retrieval tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus `list_plugins`, `set_plugin_param`, or other plugin-related siblings. The only contextual hint is that `owner` may be a channel id or effect slot id, which is useful but not usage guidance.

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