Get one plugin definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and discloses that the result includes 'the assets it affects.' It also warns about the numeric id format, which is a behavioral/constraint detail beyond the schema. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple getter, this is adequate.

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 focused sentences plus a standalone 'READ-ONLY' label. It front-loads the main action, then the critical id caveat, with no filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is complete. It defines what is returned (plugin definition plus affected assets), the id type requirement, and the read-only safety profile. No significant gaps for an AI agent to select and invoke this 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?

The input schema provides only 'integer' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the plugin_id is numeric, not the UUID, and gives a concrete example ('e.g. 500123'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Returns one plugin definition by its NUMERIC plugin id, including the assets it affects.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one plugin definition'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the numeric id type and the inclusion of affected assets.

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 a usage caveat about the id type ('Note the id is an integer (e.g. 500123), not the UUID') and labels the tool as READ-ONLY, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_plugin_definitions or export_plugin_definitions. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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