ableton_list_plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the listing is read-only, whether it requires Ableton to be open, what triggers the list (system-wide or current project), or any side effects. For a listing operation, basic transparency about safety is missing.

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 sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose. It lists all relevant plugin types without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb 'List' followed by the objects.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., names, paths, counts). It does not, leaving the AI uncertain about the output structure. However, the tool is relatively simple and the listing action is clear. With many sibling tools, the lack of output expectations is a minor gap.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for both optional parameters: 'Optional category filter' and 'Optional text filter'. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The enum list in the description matches the enum in the schema for the 'kind' parameter.

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 lists various plugin types (instruments, effects, racks, presets, VSTs, Audio Units). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ableton_diagnose_plugins by focusing on listing rather than troubleshooting. However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., available plugins vs currently loaded).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ableton_search_browser or ableton_diagnose_plugins. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This lack of context reduces its utility for an AI agent deciding among many similar tools.

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