search_flow_plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the operation as a search and gives the endpoint, but it does not disclose the return format, whether empty searches return all items, pagination behavior, or any potential cost or side effects. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the action, identifies the resource, adds a clarifying parenthetical definition, and includes the endpoint. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return-value expectations and does not distinguish when to choose this over closely related search tools, leaving meaningful gaps for agents.

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%, with both parameters already clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is strictly required since the schema provides explicit descriptions for 'search' and 'plugin_type'.

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 ('Search'), names the resource ('flow plugins'), and additionally defines what flow plugins are ('individual nodes available inside a Tdarr flow'). It also includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like search_plugins or search_flow_templates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_plugins, search_flow_templates, or list_nodes. With over 70 sibling tools, an agent is left to infer the correct choice from the name and resource definition alone.

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