get_plugin_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the specific list of returned fields (description, solution, CVSS, CVEs, VPR drivers), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, error behavior, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 one clearly structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get full plugin detail') and then enumerates the specific content categories. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and that it requires a plugin_id. It could benefit from noting prerequisites or distinctions from siblings, but it adequately covers the core operation.

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 only defines plugin_id as an integer with no description. The description adds semantic meaning by calling it a 'Tenable plugin ID', which clarifies the domain and format expectations. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it lacks examples, ranges, or error handling details.

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 uses 'Get' as the verb and specifies the resource as 'full plugin detail' with concrete fields (description, solution, CVSS vectors, CVEs, VPR drivers) and the target 'given Tenable plugin ID'. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_scan_details and get_asset_details that target different entities.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The description implies usage through purpose but does not clarify situations where other tools like search_vulnerabilities or check_kev_epss_exposure might be more appropriate.

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