dsh_plugin_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' suggests read-only behavior, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, required permissions, or whether it accesses local vs. remote data. It does list the specific files inspected, which adds minimal context.

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, information-dense sentence with no redundant text. It efficiently lists the inspected artifacts while remaining compact.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, what spec accepts, and how it differs from similar sibling tools. It only describes the input scope, leaving significant gaps for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has one parameter 'spec' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'spec' refers to (e.g., plugin ID, path, or name). It only says 'one plugin,' which weakly implies that spec identifies the plugin, but this is insufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and identifies the resource as 'one plugin' with a list of specific files and metadata (package.json, cordis.patch.yml, README, skills, DSH bundle metadata). It is clear and distinct from listing/searching, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dsh_plugin_get or dsh_plugin_readme.

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 phrase 'for one plugin' implies it targets a single plugin, giving some contextual usage cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools such as dsh_plugin_get or dsh_plugin_readme, nor any exclusions.

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