list_fx_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it states the plugin is put back 'exactly as it was' (implying temporary state changes) and that many commercial plugins won't appear because they use their own browser, with the result indicating so. These are valuable disclosures the annotations do not cover.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat following. No filler, though the 'puts the plugin back exactly as it was' clause could be slightly tightened.

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 return-value burden and does explain the key nuance that some plugins' presets live in their own browser and the result reflects that. It is largely complete, though it omits the limit/cap semantics and the result shape of the preset list.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents track, fx, and search. The description adds no syntax or format detail for any parameter and ignores the limit parameter entirely (default 200), so it does not compensate for the partial coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Lists the presets REAPER can see for a plugin') and clarifies the scope (factory programs and REAPER-saved presets). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_installed_fx or get_fx_parameters, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many fx-related siblings (get_fx_parameters, update_fx, list_installed_fx). The note about commercial plugins keeping presets in their own browser is a caveat, not usage routing.

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