find_plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry author, repository, and installed/available versions, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or failure modes.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No filler, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful scoping detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a 3-param search tool, however, the missing 'limit' documentation and lack of usage guidance leave it only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 67%; the 'source' enum has a rich inline description and 'query' has 'Search text.', but 'limit' is undocumented. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates for the gap nor earns extra credit.

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+resource ('Search for plugins') and adds intent ('to install'), clearly distinguishing it from the resource-oriented siblings like find_icons. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with other search/discovery tools.

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 phrase 'to install' and the 'source' enum (catalogue/archive/installed) imply the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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