get_plugin_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' correctly signals a non-mutating, safe operation and return values are covered by the output schema, but auth requirements, error behavior (e.g. invalid property names), and read scope are not disclosed. It adds only minimal behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the sibling pointer in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words.

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 read-only lookup tool with an output schema covering return values and a schema that documents the key identifiers, this is largely complete. The main gap is the absence of guidance on which sibling to prefer for whole-plugin or instance data, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 60%, with plugin and property described in the schema and channel/instance partially or not documented. The description only restates that a single property is read and points to get_status for the plugin chain, adding little syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits when the schema does most of the work.

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 and resource (read one property of an active plugin) and implicitly separates itself from the write sibling set_plugin_property. It does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from (e.g. get_equalizer for whole-plugin state), 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?

The parenthetical 'see get_status for the plugin chain' routes the agent to a sibling for discovering valid plugin/pipeline values, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs set_plugin_property or get_equalizer, and no conditions or exclusions stated.

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