plugin_is_valid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only check, but does not disclose return type, how invalid slot indices are handled, or what 'valid' means across channel vs mixer locations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is too terse to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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?

With three parameters, an enum, and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The agent lacks guidance on the distinction between slot and index, defaults, or expected return behavior.

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 needed to explain the semantics of index, slot, and location; it does not. The description says 'plugin slot' while the required parameter is 'index', which may confuse an agent.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('plugin slot'), and the success criterion ('has a valid plugin loaded'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling plugin tools like plugin_name or plugin_get_param, as it is a validity predicate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin_name or plugin_params, nor when a slot would be considered invalid. The agent must infer that this is a guard before plugin operations.

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