Read a plugin's settings option

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: secrets matching pass/secret/token/api_key/license are redacted to '••••' plus the last four characters, the response is unserialised JSON, and omitting `option` lists owned options. It also notes the data is the raw stored option, giving agents an accurate mental model of what they are reading.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core behavior, the list-mode option, and the raw-data clarification. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded without 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?

Given the moderate complexity, read-only annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential call pattern: required plugin, optional option, listing mode, and redaction behavior. It stops just short of a 5 because it does not describe the exact shape of the listing response or error cases, though those are not critical for a straightforward read.

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 the schema already documents each parameter's role. The description adds the redaction format and reinforces the omit-to-list behavior, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the input schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading an option a plugin owns, decoded from raw storage into JSON. It also exposes a distinctive behavior—listing a plugin's likely options when `option` is omitted—which clearly separates it from generic get_options-style tools. The scope is precise enough that an agent knows exactly what this tool does without reading siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: omit `option` to discover candidates, and read the raw stored value just as the plugin's settings screen edits it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the read-only scope and plugin-option focus make the intended use apparent.

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