ableton_diagnose_plugins

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

The description discloses that the tool compares two sources and recommends actions, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not state whether it is read-only or if it triggers any rescan operations, nor does it mention permissions or error conditions. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and contains no redundant information.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It does not explain the format of the recommendations or what the output contains, which is important for a diagnostic tool. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already provides descriptions for most parameters (query, queries, pluginDirectories), and the description does not add further meaning. Schema coverage is 25%, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics of 'includeDefaultDirectories'.

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 the tool compares plugins on disk against Ableton's indexed plugin/browser results and recommends rescan actions. It uses a specific verb (compare, recommend) and resource (plugins, indexed results), distinguishing it from siblings like 'ableton_list_plugins' which likely only lists plugins.

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 when plugins are missing from the browser, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ableton_list_plugins' or 'ableton_search_browser'. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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