plugin_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the returned document contains (Id, Name, Enabled, Settings, Config) and that it returns a dict. It doesn't disclose pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only inspect tool with annotations, this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, then a minimal Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter read-only inspect tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return shape and usage context. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe error cases (e.g., plugin not found), but that's not essential for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it names the parameter ('name') and gives a concrete example ('vieux/sshfs:latest'), which clarifies the expected format (repo/name:tag). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('full attrs for a single installed plugin'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from plugin_list ('For the set of all installed plugins use plugin_list'). It also names sibling tools plugin_enable/plugin_disable/plugin_configure, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: check a plugin's Enabled state before plugin_enable/plugin_disable, or read config keys under Settings.Env before plugin_configure. It also names the alternative for listing all plugins (plugin_list). This is exactly the kind of routing an agent needs.

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