server_plugin

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context: actions are non-destructive and no SSH needed. It clarifies that install/remove are intentionally excluded for security. No contradiction.

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: overall purpose, action details, security caveat. Each sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 two-action tool with good annotations, the description covers the main behaviors: listing plugins with check counts and status, validating manifests. It lacks return format details but actions are straightforward. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context.

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 already describes action and name parameters with their enums and descriptions. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond affirming that omitting name validates all, which is useful but not extensive.

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 clearly states the tool manages 'kastell plugins' with specific actions 'list' and 'validate'. It differentiates from siblings by specifying plugin management and listing exactly what each action does, avoiding 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?

It explicitly says install/remove are not available via MCP, directing the agent to use CLI for security. The phrase 'No SSH connection required' provides prerequisites. It could be more explicit about when to choose between list and validate, but the schema enum descriptions help.

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