check_compliance_plugin

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return shape (same as check_compliance with outdated, unknown, up_to_date_count), implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state safety, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 with three concise paragraphs: a clear first line, a usage guideline paragraph with workflow, and a return shape paragraph. No fluff, every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers purpose, usage, differentiation, and return shape. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or prerequisites (e.g., plugin must exist in registry), but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'local version' and 'plugin.json with one version field' in the workflow, linking 'plugin' to a plugin name and 'local_version' to a version string for comparison. However, it does not detail format constraints (e.g., semver) or validation rules, providing only partial semantic enrichment.

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 clearly states 'Check all artefacts of a gen-e2 plugin against a single local version', specifying the verb 'check', the resource 'artefacts of a plugin', and distinguishes from sibling 'check_compliance' by noting it performs batch verification instead of manual per-artefact calls.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you have a plugin.json with one version field and want to verify the whole plugin in one call, instead of listing artefacts manually and calling check_compliance with each one.' Provides a typical workflow with steps, giving clear context for when and how to use this tool over alternatives.

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