paperclip_get_plugin

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context: Board-only requirement, URL-encoding, and error handling details (404, 401, 403). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections: warning, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return object fields and error handling. It is complete for a simple get tool, covering all necessary context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining URL-encoding for pluginKey, the default for response_format, and the structure of the returned object, which goes beyond the schema.

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 it gets detailed information about a specific plugin by its key, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_list_plugins by specifying it's for a single plugin.

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 explicit when to use (inspecting a specific plugin before enabling) and when not to use (listing all plugins, use paperclip_list_plugins). It also includes error handling guidance.

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