get_plugin_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: 'Side effects: none' declares the read-only nature, and the error codes (WRONG_TYPE, PLUGIN_NOT_CONFIGURED) disclose failure behavior beyond the schema. It omits prerequisites such as the Live bridge needing to be running and any notes on result size for plugins with many presets.

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 purpose sentence, then labeled Side effects / Example / Edge cases sections, each earning its place with distinct information. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description steps in by naming return fields (preset names plus selected_preset_index) and enumerating error states. The remaining gap is index resolution — which base the indices use and how to discover device_index for a track.

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 0% and both parameters (track_index, device_index) are undescribed in the schema, so the description must compensate. The example get_plugin_presets(2, 2) implies the first argument is the track, but the indexing base (0- vs 1-based) is ambiguous, the device_index semantics are never explained, and there is no pointer to how to obtain a valid device index.

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 and resource ('List a VST/VST3/AU plugin's presets') plus an extra output facet ('report its Configure state'), which clearly separates it from set_plugin_preset and list_device_params. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but an agent can still route correctly.

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 edge-case section gives an effective when-not condition: native Live devices return WRONG_TYPE and unconfigured plugins report PLUGIN_NOT_CONFIGURED, so the agent knows which inputs won't work. It stops short of naming an alternative to use instead (e.g. set_plugin_preset or browser search) for those cases.

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