dsh_plugin_readme

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. It does not contradict any annotations but also adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 highly concise, stating the core functionality in a single sentence with no redundant words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial usage information, so it is not a perfect score.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain parameter meaning and usage context. It only states the return value, leaving the tool's invocation incomplete. Sibling tools suggest a broader ecosystem where README selection is unclear.

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 single parameter 'spec' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what it represents. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide any semantic meaning for the parameter, leaving the user guessing.

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 returns the README of a dsh-plugin repository, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like dsh_plugin_get or dsh_plugin_inspect, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose this over dsh_plugin_get or dsh_plugin_inspect.

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