Inspect a local Omarchy plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers useful disclosures: 'sanitized manifest' promises filtered/privacy-cleaned output, and 'No URLs or network access are used' establishes the operation as fully local and offline. This goes beyond the schema, though it could have additionally noted the absence of side effects on plugin state.

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 sentence with zero waste: the verb and scope are front-loaded, the return contents are listed, and the offline safety note closes it. Every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it lists the manifest, runtime state, and bar location as return contents and covers the safety profile. It is slightly thin on what 'sanitized manifest' contains, but this is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description does not explain the id parameter or where its value comes from. It is inferable that id refers to the already-discovered (plugin_list) plugin, but the description does not state the source of the id or confirm the format beyond the schema pattern. Marginal value added over what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Inspect one already-discovered local plugin') and enumerates exactly what is examined: sanitized manifest, runtime state, and bar location. The 'already-discovered local' qualifier distinguishes it from plugin_list, plugin_validate, and the enable/disable/clone siblings, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening its schema.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for inspecting a plugin that has already been discovered, implying the agent should call plugin_list first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give a when-not-to-use rule, but the 'already-discovered' qualifier plus the sibling set (plugin_validate for validation, plugin_local_enable/disable for state changes) conveys the intended workflow adequately.

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