get_plugin

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

The description discloses that for depth >= 2, dependencies are included, and it returns None if not found. However, with no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does not mention potential errors, data source, or caching behavior. The depth feature is a positive, but overall transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (three sections: purpose, args, returns) with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no enums, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains the depth dependency and return value. However, it lacks prerequisites or use case context. With an output schema present (not shown), the return description is sufficient, but missing a comparison with siblings slightly reduces completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. It explains that 'short_name' is the plugin's short name and 'depth' controls information depth (default 2 includes dependencies). Since schema coverage is 0%, this explicit documentation is valuable and clarifies parameter behavior.

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 'Get a specific plugin from Jenkins', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_plugins' (which retrieves all) and 'get_plugin_dependency_graph' (which focuses on dependencies) by specifying it retrieves a single plugin with optional dependency detail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like 'get_all_plugins' or 'get_plugin_dependency_graph'. The only implicit hint is the depth parameter for dependencies, but no direct usage advice.

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