trmnl_get_plugin_setting_files

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the returned file set, the rule that any published recipe is readable, and that another author's recipe omits polling headers and body. That access-scoping nuance is not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the action, which is good, but the second sentence ('The archive downloadPluginSettingArchive zips, as text by filename') is syntactically confused and costs the reader effort. Roughly the right length, but not clean.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the files produced. Missing detail on ordering/structure of the returned text map, but it is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 50%, with plugin_setting_id and profile both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no format, nesting, or default guidance for path/profile), so it neither compensates for the gap nor can exceed the baseline.

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 the files of a private plugin, returning settings.yml and one .liquid per markup size. It distinguishes itself from the sibling archive tool, which zips rather than returns text. The phrasing is slightly garbled but the intent is clear.

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?

Implies the choice against trmnl_download_plugin_setting_archive by contrasting zipped archive vs text-by-filename, but never explicitly says when to prefer one over the other or lists prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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