get_plugin_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get information') without details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure, fields returned). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a server with many similar 'get' and 'list' tools, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions in Russian ('ID приложения' for app_id, 'ID плагина' for plugin_id). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'Получить информацию о плагине' (Get plugin information) states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('plugin information'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_app_info' or 'list_app_plugins', which could provide overlapping functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. With siblings like 'get_app_info' and 'list_app_plugins', there's no indication of whether this tool is for detailed plugin metadata, status checks, or other purposes. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly defined.

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