rte_add_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add editor plugins and extensions,' which implies a mutating action but does not disclose side effects, whether existing plugins are overwritten, permission needs, idempotency, or how plugins are specified. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies project configuration.

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 a single, concise phrase that is easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Add' and the resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices clarity; brevity alone does not make it informative, but it avoids verbosity.

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 tool that modifies editor/plugin configuration, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, no annotation safety profile, and no explanation of what 'plugins and extensions' means or how the tool achieves the addition. The context signals show only 2 parameters with no enums or nesting, but the description still leaves key operational details unexplained.

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 50%: 'directory' is documented as 'Project directory', but 'api_key' has no description. The tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to the action (e.g., whether plugins are discovered from the directory or require explicit specification). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate, with no compensation for the underscripted api_key.

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 'Add editor plugins and extensions' states a clear verb ('Add') and resource ('editor plugins and extensions'), which distinguishes it from many unrelated siblings. However, it lacks specificity about which editor it targets (e.g., VS Code, JetBrains) and what kinds of plugins/extensions are meant, so it only partially clarifies the tool's scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, tools like 'rte_setup_editor' and 'generate_vite_plugins' also involve editor/plugin concepts, but the description does not explain when to choose 'rte_add_plugins' over them. No 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.