Validate a local Omarchy shell plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that symlink roots are rejected and that nothing is installed or downloaded, which signals side-effect freedom and a specific constraint. However, it does not describe the return format (success/failure indication, error messages) or validation criteria beyond schema compliance, so transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 two short sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral details (symlink rejection, no install/download) are concise and valuable. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and side effects. However, it omits any indication of the result format (e.g., validation errors, exit codes) or what constitutes a successful validation. Given the lack of annotations, a slightly richer description (e.g., 'returns a list of schema violations') would be more complete.

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 only parameter 'folder' already has a 100% schema description ('Absolute path or path relative to the MCP server working directory'). The tool description adds 'local plugin folder', which is redundant with the schema. It does not provide additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate'), a concrete resource ('local plugin folder'), and the target ('Omarchy's manifest schema'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like plugin_list or plugin_local_enable, which have different purposes (listing, enabling, etc.). No ambiguity.

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Context is implied: validation is likely a pre-check before enabling or modifying a plugin, but that linkage is not stated. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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