plugin_get_pad_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the 'complete' field is false when FL did not report every pad, which tells the agent to check for partial results. It doesn't cover error or auth behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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-loads the purpose and return fields in the first sentence, then adds usage context. Every sentence is meaningful, though the second paragraph is slightly dense with cross-tool references.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still flags the 'complete' caveat plus the surrounding drum_map workflow. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter ('target') with 100% schema coverage, and the schema description already explains the mixer_effect/channel_generator forms and points to plugin_list_loaded. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an instrument's drum pads') and enumerates the returned fields (MIDI note, color, empty/muted state). This distinguishes it from siblings like plugin_list_parameters and plugin_list_loaded, which read different aspects of a plug-in.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('before writing drums to a non-General-MIDI kit so each hit lands on the right pad') and names the downstream consumers (sound selection, the inspect_drum_map run operation, compose_drums). The workflow context is unambiguous.

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