List commands, plugins, drums, formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond content scope — no note on result size, caching, or whether the catalog is static. It is a passive static-data read, so little is needed, but the description itself contributes no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's overall purpose and then cleanly partitioned by kind. The nested parentheticals are dense and require careful reading, but every clause carries information — there is no filler to cut.

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 two-parameter, closed-world, read-only catalog with no output schema, the description tells the agent what content each kind returns and which downstream tool consumes it. It omits only the concrete shape/size of the returned structure, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 only 50%; the 'kind' enum has no per-value description in the schema, and the description compensates by explaining what each of the four enum values actually yields and why it matters. That is genuine added meaning beyond the schema, though the 'filter' parameter is left entirely to the schema and no matching semantics are elaborated.

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?

Opens with 'What SoundCraft can do' and enumerates exactly what each of the four kinds returns (commands with parameters/menu place, plugins with parameter id/range/unit, drum note names, formats). An agent can tell it is a read-only catalog lookup distinct from the action siblings like run_soundcraft_commands or open_in_soundcraft. It never uses a crisp verb like 'List/Return', which keeps it from a 5.

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 implicitly gives usage by naming the consumers of each kind ('for run_soundcraft_commands', 'for `effects` and `instrument_params`'), which tells an agent why it would fetch a given kind. But it never states when to call this versus the sibling tools, whether it should be called before running commands, or when the filter is worth using. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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