cw_find_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses return content (CLSID, file path, file presence), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination/default-limit behavior, or what happens when results exceed the limit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by scope clarifications and return-value hints. Every sentence adds information; the only blemish is the slightly imprecise 'by name' phrasing.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 50% parameter coverage, the description does well to describe result fields and the instrument/effect distinction. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely and leaves search semantics (name vs. file path) and read-only safety implicit.

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 50%: query and presentOnly are described there, while kind and limit lack schema descriptions. The description adds real meaning for kind ('instruments are the ones to load into a track'), but says nothing about limit and loosely calls the search 'by name' even though the schema query matches name or file path.

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+resource (search registered plugins) and clarifies scope (effects and instruments, instruments are the ones to load into a track). This differentiates it reasonably from siblings like cw_plugins or cw_plugin_insert_recipe, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 remark that instruments are loadable into a track implies the tool's role in an insert workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the lookup step before cw_plugin_insert_recipe.

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