run_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions plugin execution and return of modified score, but does not address potential destructive actions, error handling, or permission requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a single-line summary, followed by a brief paragraph on prerequisites, then a clear Args and Returns list. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (running external plugins) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and prerequisites. It could include more on error scenarios or plugin dependencies, but overall it is sufficient for typical use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning for all three parameters (e.g., 'Base64-encoded score file' for score_b64, 'without .qml' for plugin_name). This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Run a MuseScore QML plugin on a score.' It uses specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_harmony or export_parts, which perform different operations.

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 provides context by noting plugins must be installed and gives examples of plugin types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely.

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