plugin_install

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the daemon handles permission grants non-interactively, so users must proactively check privileges. It also specifies the return value structure, which is absent from annotations. Slightly lacking on failure modes or what happens if the plugin already exists, but overall transparent.

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 long but well-structured: main action, workflow guidance, then arguments/returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the workflow narrative could be tightened without losing essential guidance.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, parameter formats, return type, and post-install steps. It effectively situates the tool within the plugin lifecycle, making it self-contained for an agent.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates. It explains `remote` with an example (vieux/sshfs:latest) and `local_name` as an alias defaulting to remote, making both parameters clear and actionable.

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 and resource. It clarifies the remote reference format and distinguishes itself by outlining the install->inspect->enable workflow, which clearly separates it from sibling plugin tools.

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?

It explicitly directs users to call plugin_privileges first to inspect permissions, then details post-install steps (plugin_inspect, plugin_enable, plugin_configure). It also notes alternatives like plugin_list and plugin_remove, providing clear usage context and a recommended sequence.

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