plugin_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that it returns full attrs including Enabled and Settings, reinforcing the read-only nature and clarifying the return content.

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 organized into efficient sections (purpose, usage, args, returns) with no filler or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 one-parameter read-only inspect tool, the description fully covers when to use it, the parameter format, and the return shape (dict with Enabled and Settings). No output schema is necessary given the clarity.

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 input schema has only `name` with no description (0% coverage), so the description compensates with a clear definition and a concrete example 'vieux/sshfs:latest'. This fully explains the single parameter.

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+resource: 'Return the full attrs for a single installed plugin,' clearly distinguishing it from plugin_list ('all installed plugins') and mutation tools like plugin_enable/plugin_disable.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: check Enabled before enable/disable, read Settings.Env before configure, and use plugin_list for the full set. This names alternatives and scenarios.

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