inspect_upload_plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it reuses the existing restricted login rather than performing new authentication, which is useful behavioural context, but says nothing about failure modes, cost, or what a 'check' result means.

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?

A single economical sentence with the resource front-loaded. It is underspecified rather than bloated, so length itself is not the problem.

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 an undocumented required parameter, no output schema and an ambiguous outcome ('check' returning what?), the description leaves too much unknown for an agent to call it confidently or interpret the result.

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?

There is one required parameter (profileId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all — no indication of what a profile ID refers to or how to obtain one. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the native WatermelonFin Jellyfin plugin) but the verb 'Check' is vague — it does not say whether it verifies installation, version, configuration or health. It also fails to differentiate itself from sibling inspect_* tools (inspect_connection, inspect_capabilities, inspect_tailscale).

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?

'using the existing restricted Jellyfin login' implies a precondition (a restricted login must already exist), which is genuine usage context. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over inspect_connection or list_upload_targets, and no exclusions.

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