Read a plugin’s data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is read 'as it is now' (fresh, not cached), which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid namespace/path or what shape the resource returns.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what is read and from where, followed by the templating/query mechanics. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema and the return value is entirely plugin-defined, yet the description never says what comes back or how errors surface. Nested `query` object is handled well, but an agent still lacks a picture of the response.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema leaves `query` undocumented; the description compensates by explaining that query passes the resource's own options and gives an example object. The path templating trick ('players/Steve' for 'players/{player}') is a genuinely valuable addition beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading one resource of a plugin, referenced against list_extensions, and clarifies freshness ('as it is now'). This lets an agent distinguish it from list_extensions (enumerate) and read_file (filesystem) without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the workflow (take a resource from list_extensions, fill the path template) with a concrete example. It gives clear usage context but no explicit exclusions or failure conditions (e.g., unknown namespace or bad path).

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