get_plugin_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds that admin scope is required over HTTP and specifies the response content (trusted-code/sandboxing status plus per-plugin outcomes). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not fully define what 'redacted' means in the output.

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?

Four concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded; each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (purpose, read-only, return payload, admin scope, use case). No filler is present.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke and interpret the result: it names the operation, its auth requirement, and what the response contains. The only minor gap is the meaning of 'redacted,' but it does not block selection or invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default; the description correctly focuses on return behavior instead. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing parameter-related to add.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('redacted trusted-plugin loading outcomes'), then clarifies exactly what is returned: whether trusted code and sandboxing are active and each plugin's load outcome. The tool is readily distinguished from the many health/site/device siblings by its plugin-specific subject.

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?

Explicitly gives the intended use case: 'Use to audit which plugins loaded successfully after startup.' It also states the admin-scope requirement for HTTP calls, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative sibling guidance.

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