Run a plugin

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

It discloses that this runs an external program that edits through the HTTP API and that the result includes fields like edits and revision, which signals side effects beyond the annotation's destructiveHint. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'with args as JSON: {ok,code,stdout,stderr,edits,revision}' is structurally confusing because the object appears to be the return value, not the args format. It is concise but slightly ambiguous.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: name, args, result-ish fields, and plugin discovery. Missing warnings about arbitrary code execution are mostly covered by destructiveHint.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name and args. The description mostly repeats 'by name' and 'args as JSON' without adding JSON structure, examples, or further parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run a plugin', and expands the title by explaining that a plugin is an external program editing through the HTTP API and that it is invoked by name. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'plugins' tool, which lists plugins rather than running them.

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 description provides useful context by saying 'The plugins tool lists them', but it does not explicitly state when to use run_plugin versus sibling editing tools or give any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than clearly routed.

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