trmnl_get_plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the response's key structure (form_fields keyed by keyname) and the backing REST route — meaningful for a tool with no output schema. It does not cover auth scope or error behavior.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb+resource and immediately followed by the useful keyname cross-reference. The trailing endpoint line is a mildly redundant artifact but still anchors the semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does the essential job of explaining the one notable return structure (form_fields). Given a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, what remains unsaid — profile semantics and full response shape — is a minor gap.

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?

With 50% schema coverage and a nested object parameter, the description should compensate, but it only implies the id via the endpoint template '{id}' and says nothing about the profile parameter or how profile affects the returned plugin. The schema itself documents id ('Plugin id or keyname') and profile defaults, so the description adds little beyond it.

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 ('Read a plugin') plus the payload it returns ('its form fields'), and cites the underlying endpoint GET /api/plugins/{id}. It is distinguishable from trmnl_list_plugins, but it never explicitly contrasts with near-neighbors like trmnl_get_plugin_setting_details or trmnl_get_plugin_configuration.

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 second line gives real workflow routing: form_fields tells you what to send to updatePluginSettingFields, keyed by the same keyname — so the agent knows this is the discovery step before a settings write. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_plugin_setting_details instead), which keeps it below a 5.

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