Analyze one Lampa plugin folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: the deterministic entry-file selection order, the truncation of the entry preview to ~30 lines, the load-path-only output mode when `plugin` is omitted, and the failure behavior ('an unknown folder errors and lists available folders instead of guessing'). These are exactly the outcome-shaping traits an agent needs to predict results, and they do not contradict the idempotent/read-only hints.

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?

Both sentences are information-dense with zero filler; the purpose and report inventory are front-loaded, and sibling contrasts come immediately after. The only nit is that the second sentence crams four distinct rules (entry-file selection, directory-name constraint, omit mode, error behavior) into one long em-dash/semicolon chain, which slightly reduces scannability compared to crisp bullet points. Minor structural cost given how much genuinely useful content is packed in.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an existing output schema (so return format need not be restated), and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers every remaining decision point: scope, report contents, sibling routing, entry-file resolution, naming rules, the no-argument mode, and error handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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% — the schema already documents the case-sensitive directory-name constraint, the 'not a manifest id' clarification, examples ('online', 'iptv', 'collections'), and the omit-for-load-path-only behavior. The description reinforces these points and ties the parameter to entry-file resolution, but it adds no meaning the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies as the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Named with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Single-call report for one `plugins/<name>` folder,' followed by a concrete inventory of report contents (files, Lampa.* usage, Listener follow/send, settings, CSS, entry preview, plugin-loading mechanism). It explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings: 'Unlike `list_catalog` this is scoped to one plugin, unlike `trace_symbol` it does not follow a single event/file across the repo, unlike `validate_code` it does not score conventions.' An agent can select or reject this tool without opening any schema.

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 names the exact alternatives ('list_catalog', 'trace_symbol', 'validate_code') and the conditions that route an agent away from this tool. It also gives operational guidance: the entry-file fallback chain (main.js, then <plugin>.js, then first .js), the case-sensitive directory-name requirement ('not a manifest id'), the omit-for-load-path-only mode, and the error-and-list behavior for unknown folders. This is explicit when/when-not plus usage procedures, with nothing left to inference.

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