get_plugin_profile

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description is free to add content-level context, which it does by enumerating what a profile contains. It also discloses the important behavioral edge case that the tool only works for plugins it knows. It stops short of saying what an unknown plugin returns (empty result vs. error) or how large the response is.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the fallback path is given right after the primary use case. The first sentence is slightly convoluted in its clause ordering ('How a plugin works, for plugins creaper knows: ...'), which costs a little front-loading clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does list the profile's contents. It also covers the unknown-plugin path by pointing to an alternative. The remaining gap is that the structure/format of the returned profile is unspecified, which matters for an agent planning to reuse the information.

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?

There is a single required 'plugin' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including concrete examples ('Bus FORCE', 'Comp FET-76'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, but the schema fully carries it, so the baseline 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 states the resource (a plugin profile) and enumerates its content: role, signal flow quirks, required setup, and control mapping. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_fx_parameters by framing the latter as the fallback for unknown plugins. The only weakness is the missing explicit verb and the undefined jargon 'creaper knows', which leaves the retrieval action slightly implicit.

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 gives an explicit decision rule: use this tool for plugins the system already knows, and for others use get_fx_parameters plus save_note to capture what you learn. Both the when-to-use and the concrete alternatives are named. Nothing about selecting this vs. a sibling has to be inferred.

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