Read plugin source

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action (read source) but does not mention error handling (e.g., what if plugin does not exist), security implications, or any potential side effects. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses words.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the primary purpose. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., returns raw JS string) and error behavior (e.g., file not found). With no output schema, slightly more completeness would be ideal, but it is mostly adequate for a single-parameter read tool.

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 has no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds context by specifying the file pattern 'js/plugins/<name>.js', indicating that the name is likely the filename without extension. However, it does not clarify expected format (e.g., with or without .js) or case sensitivity, so some meaning is added but not fully complete.

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 identifies the verb ('Read') and resource ('JavaScript source of js/plugins/<name>.js'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools: list_plugins (listing), write_plugin (writing), remove_plugin (deleting), configure_plugin (configuring).

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?

The description implies usage for reading plugin source code, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use list_plugins instead) or when not to use it. Usage is implied, not stated.

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