plugin_privileges

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only nature ('Reads the remote plugin... installs nothing'), but goes beyond by disclosing the security implications: privileges are host-level access, not container-scoped, and plugins routinely request mounts/devices/capabilities. This is valuable context beyond the annotation.

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 detailed but well-organized, with a clear opening sentence, contextual explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. While somewhat long, every sentence adds value, though the security warning could be trimmed slightly without loss. The front-loading sets context effectively.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, security implications, parameter format, return format with examples, error cases, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

The schema has no description for the 'remote' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The description explains the format ('author/name:tag'), the optionality of the tag (defaults to :latest), and that it comes from the registry, providing crucial semantics beyond the bare type string.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: asking the registry for host privileges demanded by a not-yet-installed plugin, and explicitly distinguishes it from plugin_inspect for installed plugins. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings.

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 provides excellent usage guidance by placing the tool in the workflow ('review step before plugin_install'), explaining why it's needed (daemon never prompts, so this is the only chance to check), and explicitly directing to use plugin_inspect for installed plugins. It also notes credentials come from system_login or config.json, and mentions error conditions.

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