get_game_feature_plugin_state

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the synchronous nature, the rationale that the EGameFeaturePluginState enum is non-reflective, and the polling use case. It does not enumerate possible state string values, which would further help polling.

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 front-loaded sentences establish the action, the routing context, and the polling use case, followed by a compact Returns block. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 compensates by spelling out the full return shape (url, state, and five boolean flags). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and the annotation-covered safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and the schema already documents precedence (plugin_url over plugin_name) and the UnknownStatus behavior. The description's 'by name or URL' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb (Read), resource (current lifecycle state of a Game Feature Plugin), input modes (by name or URL), and the synchronous nature. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling activate/deactivate/unload_game_feature_plugin tools without opening a schema.

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?

Provides clear context for use: it is the canonical way to observe/poll state after an async activate/deactivate, and it is synchronous. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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