plugin_install

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It notes that 'The daemon handles permission grants non-interactively,' explains that the plugin may not be enabled by default (hence the inspect/enable workflow), and specifies the return dict shape. This goes well beyond the annotation minimalism.

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 moderately sized and well-structured: purpose first, then remote format, workflow, and args. Every sentence provides useful information, though the workflow guidance is somewhat extended. Still, it remains efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Includes the return format (dict with Id, Name, Enabled, Settings, Config) and covers post-install steps. It lacks error cases or prerequisites like Docker daemon availability, but given the absence of an output schema, the return dict description and workflow guidance make it reasonably complete.

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%, but the description's args section fully explains both parameters: `remote` is a Docker Hub reference with a concrete example (`vieux/sshfs:latest`), and `local_name` is an alias defaulting to remote. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Install a plugin from Docker Hub,' a specific verb + resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling plugin tools (inspect, list, configure, enable, remove) by focusing on the installation step and referencing those siblings for follow-up actions.

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?

Provides a clear workflow: after installation, use plugin_inspect to confirm enabled state, plugin_enable to activate, and optionally plugin_configure. It also mentions plugin_list and plugin_remove for other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for upgrading an existing plugin with plugin_upgrade).

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