tdarr_verify_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only verification but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., boolean), or error handling (e.g., if plugin not found). Behavioral traits are underexplained.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the action. However, it is too terse and misses opportunities to add context, such as indicating the boolean return value.

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 simple existence-check tool, the description is adequate given the schema covers parameters. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should explain the return value (e.g., boolean) to complete the context.

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 both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters (e.g., format of pluginID, effect of community). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'verify' and resource 'classic plugin', clearly indicating the tool's purpose: checking existence. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tdarr_search_plugins and tdarr_read_plugin, though 'classic plugin' may require domain knowledge.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tdarr_search_plugins or tdarr_read_plugin. The description does not specify the context (e.g., simple existence check) or when not to use it.

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