plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: 'Reads files only; FL need not run' discloses that no host session is required, and it explains format-resolution precedence (native, then vst3, clap, vst) and what happens when no preset is given. It stops short of covering pagination or query behavior, but the read/write profile is fully clear.

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 purpose, and the row-shape and project_write payload syntax are genuinely useful. It is dense, with several long run-on sentences that pack multiple facts per clause, but little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so: it enumerates each row's fields (name, kind, vendor, format, source, preset count, parameter map) and explains how a listing entry maps into project_write arguments. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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?

There is a single optional query parameter whose schema description is 100% covered, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond implying a general listing, 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 ('List the plugins this machine has') and scopes it precisely (FL plugin database plus tuned library instances). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings presets and params, which it names as separate concerns.

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 call it ('to choose instruments and effects before project_write') and routes the agent onward to presets for a plugin's presets and params for automatable parameters. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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