plugin_list_mixer_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'loaded plugins' clarifies that empty or unloaded slots are not included, but the description does not disclose output format, ordering, or behavior for invalid track numbers.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-argument listing tool, the description captures the core action and target. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves important details unspecified, such as whether returns include slot numbers or plugin names, and how the track index is zero- or one-based.

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 one required integer 'track' with no field description, and the description only says 'a mixer track' without explaining indexing, bounds, or the meaning of the value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('all loaded plugins in every FX slot of a mixer track'), clearly distinguishing it from related siblings like mixer_fx_slots or plugin_name. The scope is explicit and actionable.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to see what plugins are loaded across a mixer track's FX slots. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools such as mixer_fx_slots or plugin_is_valid, leaving some inference to the agent.

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