get_plugin_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does cover the essentials: this is a check operation and it reports both connection status and the active file. It does not say what happens when the plugin is disconnected (error vs. false), whether the call can time out, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single sentence with the core answer first and the calling precondition in a parenthetical. No filler, nothing that could be cut.

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 zero-parameter read-check with no output schema, describing the two returned facts (connection state, current file) plus the precondition is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the plugin is not connected, which matters for correctly branching after the call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Проверяет' / checks) with two concrete resources: plugin connection state and the currently open file. It also names the sibling tools (write_node / get_variables) it gates, so an agent can distinguish it from status-like siblings such as rate_limit_status or whoami.

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: it should be called before using write_node or get_variables, which is real when-to-use guidance tied to named alternatives. It does not state when it is unnecessary (e.g., after the connection is already confirmed), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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