get_nessus_plugin

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the read-like framing of "Get." It does not state what happens for an invalid plugin_id, whether it hits a local or remote source, or any auth/latency characteristics. An output schema exists, which offloads return-value explanation, but the operational behavior remains opaque.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It earns its place, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 an output schema covering return shape, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can call it correctly by passing a plugin ID. However, with no annotations and no parameter explanation, the definition leaves lookup source and error behavior unaddressed.

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 single required parameter plugin_id is an undocumented integer. The description says nothing about what a plugin ID is, its expected range/format, or where an agent would obtain one, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("Nessus plugin"), so an agent knows exactly what entity is being fetched. It does not distinguish this from related siblings such as get_nessus_vulnerability_details or list_nessus_vulnerabilities, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_nessus_vulnerability_details or search_security_intelligence, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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