get_plugin_details

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 does disclose the payload shape (configuration, manifest metadata, rules, MCP definitions), which is useful for a read tool, but says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown plugin name, or any failure mode.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-content list is the only elaboration and it earns its place. Slightly list-heavy but appropriately sized for one parameter.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out what the response contains. The remaining gap is only the absence of error/edge-case behavior, which is minor here.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by supplying concrete name examples ('cursor-team-kit', 'ponytail', 'pstack') that clarify the expected identifier format beyond the schema's terse 'folder name of the plugin'.

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 (gets) and resource (a specific plugin) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: full configuration, manifest metadata, rules, and MCP definitions. The singular 'a specific plugin' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_plugins without needing to name it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_plugins or get_rule. The only signal is 'a specific plugin', which implies the caller must already know the name, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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