plugin_list_loaded

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered; 'Read-only' merely restates them. The description does add value by explaining what each entry contains (the target object, reported name, parameter count) and which sibling tools consume those targets.

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 verb and resource, followed by tight supporting detail and two routing hints. No filler; a single efficient paragraph well matched to the tool's simplicity.

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 the description does not need to enumerate return values, and it correctly focuses on what a target is and where to go next. The only gap is the unexplained only_used filter, which is minor for a read-only list tool.

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 100% and the single parameter only_used is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions only_used or the used-track filtering behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 ('List') and resource ('every loaded mixer effect and Channel Rack instrument') with the added framing that results are usable as targets. This clearly separates it from the sibling plugin_list_available (available vs. loaded) and plugin_list_presets.

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 routes the agent to atlas_match_loaded for product identification and plugin_list_parameters for a plug-in's controls, which is strong contextual guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. available vs. loaded plugins), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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