Get repository plugin info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what kind of data is returned and framed as a pre-install/pre-update inspection. It does not cover network dependencies or rate limits, but the read-only nature is well covered by annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and the data it returns; the second provides the decision-relevant use case. Every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema, but the description lists the main return categories (description, changelog, version history, ratings, compatibility), which gives an agent a good idea of what to expect. The use-before-install/update guidance and the repository qualifier complete the picture well enough for a simple read-only info 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds general context about the kind of information returned but does not meaningfully enrich the meaning of slug or include_sections beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about one plugin from the WordPress.org repository,' and enumerates the returned content categories (description, changelog, version history, ratings, compatibility). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_plugin by anchoring the source to the WordPress.org repository.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use before installing or updating to see what changed.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most decision-making.

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