st.plugin.install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement and the target directory, which is useful. However, it does not explain filesystem effects, dependency installation, behavior on existing plugins, or error conditions, so transparency is only partial.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine the meaning of name, branch, or installDependencies, what the return value is, or what side effects an installation may have beyond a generic 'install' action.

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 for the five parameters. It clarifies that url is a Git URL and that confirm must be true, but name, branch, and installDependencies are left undocumented in both the schema and the description. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Install'), a specific resource ('SillyTavern server plugin'), a source ('Git URL'), and a destination ('plugins directory'). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling installers like st.extension.install and st.bridge.install by specifying 'server plugin' and 'Git URL'.

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 clear context for when the tool applies: installing a server plugin from a Git URL into the plugins directory, and it adds the important requirement that confirm must be true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scoping is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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