Guide to publishing plugins into the real Lampa plugin catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a fixed reference document, does not read this repo's snapshot, and never writes files. It also discloses that content is curated from the lampa-plugins repo rather than the Lampa app source, which is not inferable from annotations.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then source provenance, sibling differentiation, and side-effect clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 the small parameter surface, full schema coverage, and provided annotations, the description is complete: it explains scope, source, behavior, constraints, and sibling boundaries. An agent can confidently decide to invoke this tool and with which topic.

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?

The schema covers the single topic parameter fully (100%) with an enum and per-value descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that each topic returns a fixed reference document but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Document how the separate lampa-plugins repository turns plugin source files into the live catalog'), names the covered topics, and explicitly contrasts itself with validate_code and scaffold_plugin. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says this tool covers packaging and distribution 'once the plugin already works' and names the sibling tools it is not (validate_code, scaffold_plugin). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with alternatives called out.

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