Inspect an installed plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reflects callbacks from plugin files, returns a control_surface with a recommended configuration path, and lists the categories of data it inspects. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not discuss performance or error behavior.

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 long but densely packed with useful information, front-loading the core purpose and then enumerating the discovered data. Each clause adds value, and the usage guidance is placed at the end. It is not concise, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity; it avoids redundant phrasing and is well organized.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns (a control_surface with recommendations) and the full scope of discovery. It also provides usage context and alternative pathways. An agent can confidently call this tool and interpret its results without additional documentation.

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 covers both parameters (plugin and site_id) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only restates the plugin identifier types already present. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool discovers everything an installed plugin exposes and how to control it, enumerating header data, active status, version, REST routes, abilities, settings, options, menu pages, custom post types, taxonomies, blocks, shortcodes, and cron events. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_plugin (basic info) and list_plugins (listing) by adding the control_surface recommendation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit directive: 'Use this first for any plugin... before trying to change its settings.' This tells the agent when to invoke it and implies it should precede modification attempts. It also explains the returned control_surface recommends the best path (REST route, ability, update_plugin_settings, or admin_page), which guides follow-up tool selection.

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