generate_plugin

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 only says 'Generate complete plugin scaffolding' without disclosing side effects such as file creation, potential overwriting of existing files, or whether it writes to the registry directly (though it mentions 'registry entry'). For a scaffolding tool that creates multiple files, the lack of information about idempotency or destructive behavior is a notable gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists all major outputs. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does.

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?

While the description covers the main artifacts, it omits important context for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the generated scaffolding looks like, whether it creates files in the current directory, or how it interacts with the registry (does it automatically register, or is that a separate step via add_plugin_to_registry?). Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for an agent to misunderstand the workflow.

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 with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the generated artifacts. It does not, for example, explain how the 'tables' parameter maps to migrations or how 'includeRoutes' affects the output. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 generates complete plugin scaffolding and lists the specific artifacts (package.json, index.ts, tsconfig.json, migrations, routes, registry entry). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_plugin_migration (which only handles migrations) and add_plugin_to_registry (which only registers). The verb 'Generate' plus the resource 'plugin scaffolding' is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool creates the full plugin scaffold and that other tools like generate_plugin_migration or validate_plugin might be used in sequence. An agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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