plugins_atlas_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral fact that it performs a local search without contacting FL Studio, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or any constraints beyond that. Given annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and the offline behavior. It is concise and no filler words. However, it could be slightly more structured to list key filter options, but for its brevity it is effective.

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?

This tool has a nested request object with 7 parameters, no inline schema descriptions, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics or return value. Though an output schema exists, the parameter complexity is high and the description does not add enough context to use the tool correctly. An agent would struggle to know what values to pass for fields like origin, vendor_id, etc.

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 includes a nested object 'request' with 7 properties, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema does not explain the parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining what query, kind, origin, etc. mean. The agent has to infer from parameter names and the single line 'Bounded filters for a local, deterministic product search.' This is a significant gap.

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 tool searches bundled static plug-in knowledge and explicitly mentions it does not contact FL Studio. This is a specific verb (search) with a defined resource (bundled static plug-in knowledge), distinguishing it from tools that interact with the live FL Studio environment, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies usage when offline or needing static knowledge, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plugins_atlas_get_product or plugins_atlas_recommend. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, leaving some inference needed.

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