zcode_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: that enabling plugins consumes the tool budget, the concrete failure mode ([1210] Invalid API parameter above roughly 89-94 tools), and the env-var gate on install/update/uninstall. However, it says nothing about reversibility, side effects on disk, or whether uninstall/reset_config destroy state — notable gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each carries information (budget constraint with a concrete error code, and the install prerequisite). The middle sentence is dense but earns its place. 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?

For a tool with twelve action variants, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the operational hazards (tool-budget ceiling, install gating) but omits the action taxonomy entirely, leaving the agent to discover the capability surface from the anyOf schema. Adequate but not complete for this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema documents the plugin_id and workspace fields itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it never explains the twelve action variants (list, overview, describe, set_enabled, configure, reset_config, validate, install, update, uninstall, marketplace, cancel_operation) despite them being the core discriminator. Baseline 3 applies given the rich 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?

"Enumerate and manage extensions" gives a concrete verb plus resource, and the domain (plugins/extensions) is distinct from siblings like zcode_settings or zcode_mcp. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or mention the action taxonomy, but the purpose is unambiguous. Slight terminology drift ("extensions" vs the tool name's "plugins") is a minor blemish.

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 guidance, and no alternatives among the many zcode_* siblings are named. The one conditional statement ("install/update/uninstall require ZCODE_MCP_ALLOW_PLUGIN_INSTALL=1") is a prerequisite rather than usage routing. An agent must infer context entirely from the schema.

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