查看插件详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no auth, error, or rate-limit context, but it does spell out the response payload, which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

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?

One dense sentence with the lookup key and returned fields front-loaded; the parenthetical install command is useful rather than filler. The long field list is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so thoroughly (titles, author, homepage, versions, compatibility range, install command). Only missing element is any failure/not-found or auth behavior.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there, including the same '@deepwhale-cn/' prefix example. The description's restatement of the prefix rule adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('按包名获取单个...插件的详情') and scopes it to a single plugin looked up by package name, which cleanly separates it from search_plugins/list_categories. It even enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this when you already have a package name rather than a query. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (search_plugins) is given, though the prefix-omission note does hint at input expectations.

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