Get a plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the plugin-path identifier format but does not disclose behavior such as error responses or what happens for invalid paths. Since annotations carry the primary safety burden, a 3 is appropriate for the minimal extra context 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by concrete examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to scan.

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 read-only getter with only two parameters, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context: the purpose, the identifier format, and the site scoping (via schema). No output schema exists, so no return details are required. The tool is fully specified for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds value by providing explicit example plugin paths ('woocommerce/woocommerce') that clarify the expected format beyond the schema's no-.php rule. This enriches the parameter understanding, justifying a score above baseline.

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 retrieves full details about an installed plugin, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by restricting to 'installed plugin' but does not explicitly contrast with get_plugin_info, which likely covers plugin repository metadata. A slight differentiation is present but not emphasized.

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 installed plugins by giving file path examples, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_plugin_info or how it relates to list_plugins. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are given; the usage context is only inferred.

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