search_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: an external GitHub lookup that returns repos and binaries, which implies a non-mutating read. However, it does not address network dependency, rate limits, result volume, or empty-result behavior, which a search tool over an external API would benefit from disclosing.

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 two sentences totaling roughly 14 words, with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every word contributes either the search scope, the matching mode, or the return content.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain return values, and it does so only at a high level ('repos and available release binaries'). An agent cannot tell what result fields are available (repo URLs, stars, download links) or how results might feed into siblings like install_plugin; acceptable for a one-parameter tool, but with clear gaps.

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 100%, with the single 'name' parameter already documented by concrete examples ('YSF', 'streamer', 'mysql'). The phrase 'by name' merely restates what the schema conveys, so the description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the high-coverage schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('SAMP plugins on GitHub'), and states the by-name search mode along with what is returned (repos and release binaries). It is sufficiently distinct from siblings like web_search and search_samp_resources via the GitHub scope, though it never names those alternatives 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Closely related siblings such as search_samp_resources, install_plugin, and web_search exist, but the description does not say how search_plugin relates to them or when to prefer one over another; the usage context is only implied by the purpose sentence.

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