search_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The mention of returning 'names, descriptions, and links' provides basic transparency but is not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No extraneous information is present; it earns its length.

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 a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the action and return content but omits details like sorting, pagination, or differentiation from siblings. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 schema has 2 parameters (query required, limit optional) with only query having a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain limit, format, or behavior. With 50% coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 the tool searches a specific directory (Remote OpenClaw) for plugins from multiple model families (Claude Code, OpenClaw, Hermes, Codex) and specifies what it returns (names, descriptions, links). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools search_mcp_servers and search_skills by naming the directory and plugin type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (search_mcp_servers, search_skills). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario.

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