list_installed_fx

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: dedup semantics ('each appears once, the same plugin in several formats is listed as one') and the aggregation behavior of 'categories'. It omits pagination/limit behavior, but the behavioral context is solidly richer than the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then supporting detail, then a next-step handoff. Four sentences, all relevant, though a touch dense with parenthetical asides.

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 so by naming the fields and the 'categories' aggregation. It covers purpose, dedup, and handoff, leaving only pagination/limit behavior and total count unaddressed.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (kind, format, search, category, developer). The description echoes the returned fields but adds no format or syntax detail for search/limit beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (browses) and resource (installed plugins/FX) and enumerates what each entry carries. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like scan_plugins, get_plugin_catalog, or list_fx_presets, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 provides implied usage via an example question ('what reverbs do I have?') and a downstream handoff ('Pass the name to add_fx or create_track's instrument'). There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternative listing tools such as get_plugin_catalog or scan_plugins, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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