get_plugin_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — and notably never explains why a read-only inspection tool accepts confirm_delete, expected_revision, or pagination fields, which is exactly the kind of context a description should supply.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the sentence is misallocated: it describes output fields that the output schema already documents while leaving the input contract unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values or side effects. What remains missing is the input contract — how to identify the plugin and what the pagination/mutation-flavored fields mean on a read-only call — which makes the definition under-complete for its schema complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%: the single request object exposes track_id, processor_id, limit, offset, dry_run, confirm_delete and expected_revision with titles only. The description says nothing about any of these — not that track_id+processor_id identify the plugin instance, not what dry_run or expected_revision do, not how pagination works. It spends its text on return values instead, which the output schema already covers.

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?

"Inspect" is a specific read verb applied to a specific resource (plugin parameters), and the sentence enumerates what is inspected (ordinal/port ID, native value, range/default, display metadata). An agent can distinguish this from the write-side sibling set_plugin_parameters by the verb alone, though the description never explicitly names that alternative.

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 is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to set_plugin_parameters as the mutation counterpart. The agent is told what the tool returns but not under what circumstances to reach for it instead of a sibling.

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