geck_plugin_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the potentially mutating backup side effect, but it does not explain what creating a backup entails, whether it can overwrite existing backups, or whether the operation affects the Data directory in other ways.

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 a single well-formed sentence with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the optional backup behavior is clearly appended in a low-cost clause.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the return value does not need explaining, but the description still omits important context: what game_dir does, how backup naming or overwrite behavior works, and what happens when no plugin is found. With no annotations and no parameter documentation, this is not complete enough for an agent to use all parameters confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It partially maps to 'backup' and suggests plugin_name refers to an .esp/.esm in Data, but it never names or explains game_dir, leaving a meaningful parameter unexplained.

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 action ('Check whether') and the resource ('.esp/.esm exists in Data'), and adds the optional backup behavior. It is specific enough to distinguish from list-style siblings like geck_list_plugins, though it does not name any alternative directly.

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 'Check whether an .esp/.esm exists in Data' implies the primary use case: verifying plugin presence before other operations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over geck_list_plugins or geck_backup_plugin, and no mention of prerequisites or side conditions.

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