搜索 DSH 插件

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: which fields the fuzzy match spans, what happens when query is omitted, and what each result contains (名称、简介、最新版本、DSH 兼容范围、安装命令). Pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: match scope first, fallback behavior second, return shape third. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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, so the description correctly takes on the burden of enumerating returned fields, and it covers matching scope and the no-query fallback. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of ordering guarantees beyond '默认顺序' or how limit interacts with paging).

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not carry: query performs a fuzzy match across package name, Chinese/English title and description (the schema only gives example keywords), and category acts as a filter over those results. limit semantics are left to the schema.

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+resource (按关键词模糊搜索 DSH 插件市场) and even names the fields matched (包名、中英文标题、描述), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_plugin or list_categories, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 gives a useful conditional: 不传 query 时按分类/默认顺序列出插件, which implicitly covers the list-vs-search use case. But it never names get_plugin (single plugin lookup) or list_categories as alternatives, nor states when keyword search is inappropriate, so routing guidance is only implied.

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