get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description fully details the return structure (entry, metadata, content_raw, content_full, install_targets), disclosing exactly what the tool outputs. It implies a non-destructive read operation without hidden side effects.

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 efficient: two sentences for purpose/usage and a bullet list for outputs. No redundant information, every part adds value.

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?

While the output fields are well described, the description lacks parameter explanations. Given the tool has a moderate complexity (3 required params) and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete without parameter semantics.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the three required parameters ('plugin', 'type', 'name'). Despite having output details, the parameter semantics are absent, requiring the agent to infer their meaning from context.

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 it retrieves a specific registry entry with full content, using the verb 'get' on the resource 'registry entry'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_plugin_install_package' by noting the latter retrieves all artefacts at once.

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 states when to use ('to read a single artefact's documentation or to get its install files') and when not to, providing the alternative tool name 'get_plugin_install_package' for bulk retrieval.

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