instrument_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral caveat: results don't prove plugins load or samples are available. But it doesn't state whether this is a read-only scan, whether the cache can be refreshed/invalidated, or how large/unbounded a result set may be. That's thin for a discovery tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The caveat is the single most valuable sentence and it's included without bloat.

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 annotations, no output schema, no enum hints, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should be doing significantly more heavy lifting than two sentences. It omits return structure, default behavior for content_roots, and query semantics — important gaps for a discovery tool with three undocumented options.

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 0% — the three parameters (limit, query, content_roots) are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not name a single parameter, explain pagination via limit, describe query matching semantics, or clarify that content_roots overrides default search locations. This is the opposite of the compensation a 0%-coverage schema requires.

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 states a verb and resource ('Discover plugin cache entries and local preset files'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it's somewhat abstract and, given the sibling tools are almost entirely DAW/reaper-adjacent operations, it isn't clear how this tool relates to (or differs from) get_fx_preset or set_fx_preset. A capable agent can guess the purpose, but the scope is fuzzy.

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?

There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite 'get_fx_preset' being an obvious sibling. The caveat sentence hints at a limitation ('do not prove plugins load'), which is diagnostic context but not usage routing.

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