plugin_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only intent ('inspect') and the fact that no GUI opens, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects of loading a plugin, required permissions, error behavior, or the exact nature of the output. For a non-annotated tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 two sentences and very concise, front-loading the core purpose. There is no fluff, but it omits essential details. The conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 is complex (a plugin object with many fields, pagination via limit/offset) and has no output schema. The description only provides a high-level summary and fails to explain 'normalized parameter IDs,' 'programs,' or the semantics of the plugin object. The agent lacks enough context to use this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters, but it mentions none. The plugin object, limit, and offset are completely undocumented in the description. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which has many nested fields and constraints, making this a serious deficiency.

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 tool loads a registered plugin and inspects its normalized parameter IDs and programs, which is a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings like plugin_verify or plugin_preset_save by focusing on inspection rather than verification or saving. The additional note 'No GUI is opened' reinforces its programmatic nature.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin_verify or plugin_inspect. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which it should be chosen over similar tools. The 'No GUI' note hints at a use case but doesn't explicitly direct the agent.

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