hb_plug_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that plugin code is not executed, which is important for safety and intent. It does not disclose persistence side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what 'record' entails beyond the non-execution guarantee.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the key constraint immediately. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more context than usual. It covers the critical non-execution behavior but does not explain what the recorded dry-run returns, whether it persists state, or how failures are reported. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a write-like operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the plugin name or args object beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 gives a specific verb plus resource: 'Record a plugin dry-run.' It also clarifies the critical boundary that plugin code is not executed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like hb_plug_list, hb_plug_info, or hb_garden_run, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'without executing plugin code' implies this is for dry-run recording rather than real plugin execution. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer the usage context.

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