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 clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns 'the full attrs... including Enabled and Settings', and it frames usage around inspecting state before mutations. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 four concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context and alternatives, and the final two give parameter and return details. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, alternatives, parameter semantics, and return value expectations. It tells the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results, given the simplicity of the tool.

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 only has a required 'name' string with no description, so 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by defining the parameter: 'args: name - Plugin name, e.g. "vieux/sshfs:latest"' plus a concrete example. This adds meaningful semantic info that the schema lacks, though it doesn't specify any format constraints or possible values beyond the example.

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 begins with 'Return the full attrs for a single installed plugin,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling plugin_list by saying 'For the set of all installed plugins use plugin_list.' It also mentions the return includes Enabled and Settings, 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 explicitly says 'Use this to check a plugin's Enabled state before calling plugin_enable / plugin_disable, or to read the config keys it exposes under Settings.Env before calling plugin_configure.' It even names the alternative tool plugin_list for when you need all plugins. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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