get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose what comes back, including the important distinction that content_full is verbatim and 'write-ready' while content_raw is body-only, and that install_targets are per-client destination paths. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the entry doesn't exist) or whether lookups are cached/permission-gated.

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 critical constraint is front-loaded in the first line and reinforced in caps, followed by the routing alternatives, then a scannable bulleted return list. Every line serves either selection or interpretation; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value bullets are supplementary rather than required, and they still add interpretive value for similarly named fields. For a 3-required-param read tool the definition is close to complete; only the accepted values for 'type' and the not-found case are 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by framing the three required params as a compound identity key (plugin + type + name). However it never explains what values 'type' accepts (no enum exists) or how 'plugin' resolves, leaving the most error-prone parameter underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a specific registry entry with its full content') and immediately scopes it as a lookup by exact identity. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling discovery tools like suggest_entries and search_entries, and from the bulk get_plugin_install_package.

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 the precondition ('ONLY when you already know the exact plugin, type, AND name') and names two alternatives for the keyword/task case plus a third for bulk retrieval. The agent has a complete routing decision without opening any schema.

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