list_effect_presets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the operation depends on the plugin format exposing presets and explicitly states that an empty list is normal, not an error. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior for invalid IDs, though the verb 'list' strongly implies non-mutating behavior. The added context about plugin variability is valuable beyond bare inference.

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 compact and well-organized: a first sentence states the purpose, a second sentence adds an essential caveat, and a clean Args section explains parameters. There is no filler or repetition. Every line contributes actionable information, and the important normal-result behavior is front-loaded near the top.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter sourcing, and special Master bus value, plus a behavioral expectation about empty results. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of strings) or error handling for invalid track/index values, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results. A slightly richer note on return type would make it fully complete.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It defines track_id as coming from project_get_info's track list and documents the special -2 value for the Master bus. It defines index as the position in the chain from list_realtime_effects. This is precisely the kind of semantic enrichment that an agent needs to call the tool correctly, and it exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List a realtime effect's real factory presets". It immediately clarifies the scope with examples (reverb room/hall presets) and distinguishes itself from related operations like listing effects or parameters. The phrase 'real factory presets' clearly separates it from user presets and from parameter-level inspection.

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 gives clear workflow context: track_id comes from project_get_info and index from list_realtime_effects, which tells an agent exactly how to obtain arguments. It also sets the expectation that not every plugin exposes factory presets and that an empty list is a normal outcome, preventing false error detection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the input provenance and normal-result caveat provide solid usage guidance.

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