Get a plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the plugin path identification pattern but does not explain what 'full details' includes, return format, or any read-time caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource, then gives immediate useful examples. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is strong, so an agent with the plugin identifier can invoke it. However, the lack of an output schema and the vague 'full details' phrase leave the return expectations underspecified, and sibling ambiguity with get_plugin_info/inspect_plugin is not resolved.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, including the plugin identifier format and site_id default behavior. The description adds redundant but helpful path examples, yet does not substantially extend the schema's meaning.

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 action ('Get full details') and the resource ('one installed plugin'), and specifies the identifying input format with concrete path examples. It distinguishes itself from broad listing/searching sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like get_plugin_info or inspect_plugin.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need full details for a single installed plugin and know its plugin file path. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_plugins, search_plugins, or get_plugin_info, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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