trmnl_get_plugin_setting_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral content is the raw REST endpoint and the opaque remark about private plugins reading through getMergeVariables, which hints at semantics without explaining them (no payload shape, no failure modes, no permission notes).

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?

It is short, but the second clause is an unstructured fragment glued on with a semicolon and no verb, reading as internal jargon. The core purpose is front-loaded, yet the trailing fragment costs clarity rather than earning 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?

With no output schema, the description must say what comes back, and it does not — 'the data' is left undefined, so an agent cannot anticipate whether it receives merge variable values, a JSON blob, or rendered markup. For a nested-object, two-parameter read tool the definition is under-specified.

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 50% and both the nested id ('Plugin setting ID or UUID') and the optional profile ('defaults to default') already carry descriptions. The description adds only the literal '{id}' path placeholder, which restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no real meaning is added beyond structured fields.

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?

It states a verb and resource ('Get the data of a native plugin setting'), which does separate it from the write sibling trmnl_update_plugin_setting_data and the nearer trmnl_get_plugin_setting_details. But 'data' is never defined, and the dangling clause 'a private plugin reads through getMergeVariables' blurs the boundary with trmnl_get_merge_variables rather than sharpening it.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. The agent is not told how this differs from trmnl_get_plugin_setting_details or trmnl_get_merge_variables, nor that trmnl_update_plugin_setting_data is the write counterpart. Usage has to be inferred from the endpoint path alone.

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