actiond_plugins_recommend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds rich behavioral context: it scans config files, returns per-plugin recommendations with category, reasoning, priority, confidence, plus aggregate suggestions and a workflow proposal. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides a detailed picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 informative but concise enough. It front-loads the primary purpose, then details detection capabilities and output structure. Every sentence adds value, and it doesn't repeat the schema or annotations. While slightly long, it's well-organized and not redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of the return value: per-plugin recommendations with fields, aggregate suggestions, and a workflow proposal. It also covers usage context (read-only, apply via enable/disable) and the optional path. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'path' with a description 'Project path to analyze (defaults to current directory)'—schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a project directory and recommend which CI/CD plugins to enable or disable.' It specifies the resource (project directory), the action (analyze and recommend), and what it detects (languages, frameworks, project types, features). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like actiond_plugin_enable/disable by framing it as a read-only recommendation tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Read-only; apply the suggestions with actiond_plugin_enable / actiond_plugin_disable.' It also mentions the optional path parameter and its default behavior. This gives clear routing guidance, leaving no ambiguity about how it relates to sibling tools.

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