params

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/false openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior the annotations cannot: 'Reads files only; FL need not run' and the constraint that it only answers for plugins that have a parameter map. Return semantics for normalised values are also disclosed. No rate-limit or pagination notes, but those are likely N/A.

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 purpose in the first clause, then routing and caveats. Dense but nearly every clause carries information. The stacked parenthetical about automation-target shapes is the one spot that reads as cramped rather than crisp.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining exactly what is returned (index, name, normalised value with FL's display at 0/.25/.5/.75/1 so a value can be chosen for a target Hz/dB/%). Combined with the routing guidance and the file-read-only note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both inputs (plugin, query) are fully documented in the schema and the description adds no input-format detail beyond it. The description's index/automation-target explanation ('{channel: id, param: index}') describes returned data and usage, not the input parameters, so the baseline 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 resource and scope: a plugin's automatable parameters, with each one's index, name, and normalised value meaning. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings 'plugins' (what is installed) and 'presets' (a plugin's presets), and names the fallback 'fl_call plugins.getParamName' for plugins lacking a parameter map.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('Call it before automating a plugin or effect knob'), explicit exclusions ('Not for choosing a sound'), and named alternatives ('plugins lists what is installed, presets a plugin's presets'). The condition under which the tool does NOT answer, and the workaround, are both stated.

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