plugin_inspect

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Adds valuable workflow context (security review purpose) but omits technical behavioral details: return format (string vs object), size limits, error conditions if plugin not found, or caching behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose (what), second states workflow timing (when). Front-loaded with action verb and no filler text.

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?

Given low complexity (1 param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), description adequately covers purpose and usage context. Sibling tool plugin_mark_reviewed exists; explicitly mentioning it as the follow-up action would achieve completeness 5.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'plugin' parameter fully documented in the schema including examples. Description implies the target ('plugin adapter source code') but adds no syntax, format constraints, or validation rules beyond the schema-provided baseline.

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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('plugin adapter source code'), and context ('security review'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like plugin_analyze_site (which analyzes sites) and plugin_mark_reviewed (post-review action) by specifying source code inspection.

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Call this before enabling an unreviewed plugin.' Establishes clear workflow prerequisite but does not explicitly name plugin_mark_reviewed as the subsequent step or contrast with plugin_analyze_site.

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