scan_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the non-obvious side effect (each test runs on a hidden temporary track after the end of the project and is removed again), the time-boxing behavior tied to max_seconds, and the resumption semantics. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking a plugin-testing tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the ordering (what it tests -> side effect -> where results go -> continuation) is logical. The long parenthetical enumerations of instrument and effect traits are informative but slightly bulky, costing a bit of tightness.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything needed: what is tested, what is touched, where the artifacts go, and how to resume partial runs. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and all six parameters are documented in the schema (including enum, names source, search, refresh, include_js, max_seconds bounds). The description only reinforces 'at their default settings' and the max_seconds continuation, adding little beyond what the schema already provides; 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?

States a specific verb (scan/test) and resource (installed plugins) and clarifies the goal ('learn what they actually do, at their default settings'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming where results land (get_plugin_catalog, list_installed_fx), so an agent can tell it apart from those read-only listing tools.

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 description gives clear context: use this to discover real plugin behavior and route the output into the catalog. It also explains the continuation pattern ('long scans stop... call again to continue'), which is a genuine usage instruction, though it never frames get_plugin_catalog/list_installed_fx as the read-side alternatives to prefer instead of re-scanning.

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