search_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the HTTP method, the resource being searched, and the exact fields returned, which covers the core behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, mention authentication needs, or describe pagination/result limits, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool does, gives the endpoint, and lists the return fields in two sentences. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant 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?

The description is appropriately complete for a search tool: it explains what is searched, what fields are returned, and how the results connect to manage_library_plugin. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or result limits, and it does not call out search_flow_plugins as the alternative for flow plugins, so a small gap remains, but the core operational context is present.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully: search string and plugin_type filter, with an example for plugin_type, so 100% schema coverage earns a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the classic plugins available to the server', and even names the HTTP endpoint. It also lists the exact return fields, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from related tools like search_flow_plugins.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool by explaining that the returned source and ID are needed by manage_library_plugin. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to route to it appropriately.

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