list_installed_fx

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 describes the return JSON structure (name, type, path, manufacturer), which is useful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., Reaper must be running), or error conditions. For a simple list operation, this is acceptable, but the description could have explicitly stated non-destructiveness and any environment assumptions.

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 concise and well-structured with a Google-style docstring. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter explanations and return format. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is easy to scan and parse.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, both parameters with their allowable values, and the return JSON fields. It does not over-explain or omit essential details. The tool's context (installed plugins in Reaper) is adequately covered.

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 schema provides only titles and nullability, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: plugin_type restricts to specific types (VST2, VST3, AU, JS, CLAP) and search_query filters by name, manufacturer, or type. This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema and gives the agent actionable guidance.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all installed FX/plugins in Reaper'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools (find_reaper_projects, parse_reaper_project, analyze_audio_files), which deal with projects and audio analysis rather than plugin discovery. No further clarification needed.

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 implies usage by demonstrating filter options (plugin_type, search_query), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no closely related sibling tools, the lack of explicit routing is not critical, but it still does not offer clear context on when one would invoke this function (e.g., 'Use this to discover available plugins before processing'). It is adequate but not explicit.

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