manage_library_plugins

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies reload is a mutating operation and inspect is non-mutating, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what diagnose actually does.

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 four words with no filler, so it is very concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity creates ambiguity by substituting 'inspect' for the schema's more specific 'list' and 'diagnose' actions.

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 tool with three distinct actions and no annotation coverage, a single generic sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what diagnose entails, what reload's consequences are, or when to reach for this tool instead of a sibling. The output schema covers return shape but not these behavioral and usage gaps.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the action enum and the conditional plugin_name. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantic load.

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 identifies a specific resource ('library plugins') and high-level operations ('inspect or reload'), giving a general sense of purpose. However, it collapses the three concrete actions in the schema (list, reload, diagnose) into two umbrella verbs, and it does not explicitly mention 'diagnose' as a distinct operation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool or how to choose among list, reload, and diagnose. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the schema enum and sibling names.

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