dsh_plugin_status

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose whether the tool performs network calls (e.g., checking GitHub auth), is read-only, or may have side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to clarify safety or side effects beyond the word 'Report'.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the key scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple status tool with no output schema or annotations, the description names the covered components but does not explain what 'status' entails, whether results are returned in a structured format, or if any checks could fail or hang. It is adequate for a straightforward status check but leaves some ambiguity regarding output and side effects.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by enumerating the five components covered by the status report, which helps the agent understand what the tool reports on even though no parameters exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 function with the verb 'Report' and names five specific status categories (GitHub auth, catalog cache, dsh binary, profile, runtime bridge). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on plugin actions (install, uninstall, search) or runtime control (start, stop).

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 implies a diagnostic use case (checking the health/status of key components) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or contrast with sibling status-like tools, leaving the decision to the agent.

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