node_plugins_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid or missing UUIDs, whether authentication is required, or what the response structure will look like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose effectively.

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 simple get-by-UUID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It could be improved by noting not-found behavior or response expectations, but nothing critical for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter (uuid) with the description 'Plugin UUID', providing 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('node plugin'), and a unique identifier ('UUID') to state exactly what the tool does. This clearly differentiates it from node_plugins_list, which lists plugins rather than retrieving one, and from nodes_get, which targets a different resource.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving a single node plugin when the UUID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like node_plugins_list or when not to use it. Usage context is clear but only implied, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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