dsh_plugin_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and input formats, but gives no information about return value shapes, error conditions (e.g., not found), permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no other structured metadata.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no padding or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally viable: it explains what the tool does and what input it expects. However, with no output schema available, it does not describe the return format or what a 'catalog card' contains, and it offers no contextual guidance about when to use this tool over siblings.

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 schema describes only a single string parameter 'spec' with zero description coverage, so the description's mention of three accepted formats (owner/repo, github:owner/repo, GitHub URL) adds essential meaning. However, it lacks examples or detailed syntax expectations, leaving some ambiguity about exact URL forms.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('catalog card'), and enumerates accepted identifier formats (owner/repo, github:owner/repo, GitHub URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list or search, which handle multiple cards or querying.

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 (e.g., dsh_plugin_search or dsh_plugin_list). It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related tasks, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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