plugins_inspect_pad_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds value by specifying the kinds of observations returned (pad, MIDI-note, color, empty, mute), but it does not elaborate on what these mean or any quirks of the response. With annotations handling the safety profile, 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, front-loaded sentence starting with the verb 'Read' and conveying the essential resource and content. Every word earns its place with no repetition of the title or schema details.

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 rich input schema, the output schema, and the annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It is minimal, but nothing essential is missing for selection or basic usage; the schema explains the target parameter and the output schema explains the return value.

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 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and a discriminated union of target types. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema already carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('pad map'), then enumerates the observation types covered: 'generic pad, MIDI-note, color, empty, and mute observations.' The title 'Inspect a plug-in pad map' reinforces this and distinguishes it from sibling plugins_inspect_parameter_map by the resource type.

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: an agent should call this when it wants pad-map observations rather than parameter-map or scan data. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and description alone.

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