get_plugin_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Returns all') and specifies scope (system, AU/VST3), but does not go beyond that to mention potential performance implications, filtering behavior, or output format. For a simple read-only listing, this is adequate but not exceptionally transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every word adds value. It includes the plugin formats and the use case, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the primary function and usage context. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that filtering is possible, but that is covered by the schema, so the description still gives sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema is fully self-descriptive (100% coverage): the only parameter 'filter' has a description explaining it filters by plugin name. The tool description adds no additional meaning, but the schema clearly handles parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Returns all audio plugins (AU, VST3) installed on this system.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional phrase 'Use to know what tools the producer has available' reinforces its purpose while distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_track_details or analyze_mix.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use to know what tools the producer has available.' It implies this is for discovering available plugins, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or cite alternatives, so it misses the highest bar for exclusionary guidance.

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