node_plugins_get

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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no error behavior for a missing/invalid uuid, no note on what a plugin record contains, and no scoping details. With the low bar set by annotations, a description this thin still adds no context.

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?

One short clause, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing sibling differentiation and any note on a single-plugin retrieval failure mode, but the call surface itself is fully specified by the schema.

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 single parameter is named 'uuid' with format 'uuid', making it largely self-documenting. The description at least ties the parameter to the retrieval ('by uuid'), though it adds no syntax, scope, or validity details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for a trivially self-evident parameter.

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 'Get Node Plugin by uuid' essentially restates the tool name (node_plugins_get) with the resource noun swapped in. It does convey retrieve-by-identifier, but it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as node_plugins_list, node_plugins_tags_list, or node_plugins_clone. This is close to tautology rather than a distinct statement of purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use node_plugins_list to enumerate plugins vs. this tool to fetch one), and no prerequisites. The uuid requirement is implied by the name but never explicitly framed as a condition for selection.

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