Analyze one Lampa plugin folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real behavior: entry-file resolution precedence (main.js → <plugin>.js → first .js), output truncation to ~30 lines, and that an unknown folder errors and lists available folders rather than guessing. The only gap is no note on output size/pagination beyond the truncation hint, which the output schema largely covers.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then the sibling contrasts, then the parameter rules and error behavior — a sensible priority order with zero filler sentences. It is dense and the third clause chains three 'unlike' comparisons plus the entry-resolution and path-validation rules into one long passage, which costs some scannability.

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-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this is complete: report contents, path validation rules, entry-file fallback order, truncation, and error behavior are all stated. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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% and the schema description already states case-sensitivity, the 'not a manifest id' caveat, and the omit behavior, so much of the description restates it. It nevertheless adds a constraint absent from the schema ('never a plugins/ prefix or nested path') and ties the parameter to the entry-file selection logic, which is genuine added meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Single-call report for one plugins/<name> folder') and enumerates exactly what the report contains: files, Lampa.* usage, Listener follow/send, settings, CSS, and an entry preview. It also explicitly differentiates itself from three siblings (list_catalog, trace_symbol, validate_code), so the agent can pick it 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?

Gives explicit routing rules via 'unlike list_catalog... unlike trace_symbol... unlike validate_code', which tells the agent both when this tool wins and which alternative to use instead. It also states the omit-parameter case ('omit it for load-path-only output') and the failure mode, leaving nothing to inference.

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