add_plugin_to_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool modifies a registry file and runs a generate command, which are the primary actions. However, it does not mention idempotency, overwriting behavior, failure modes (e.g., if the plugin already exists), or any side effects on existing entries. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap that a 3 reflects.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and purpose, then adds the usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 straightforward registration step with three parameters (one required), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and when to use it. It does not explain potential edge cases like existing registry entries or the exact output of the generate command, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, these are minor omissions. The description is adequate for an agent to call it 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra semantics—it does not clarify relationships between parameters or any special constraints beyond what the schema provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Add a plugin to plugins/.registry.ts'), the resource ('plugins/.registry.ts'), and the secondary action ('regenerate plugin-imports'). It also ties usage to a specific workflow ('Use after generating a new plugin'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_plugin. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 timing guidance ('Use after generating a new plugin'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the workflow reference make the usage context clear. A more detailed exclusion would improve it, but it is already helpful.

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