validate_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the validation and output but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety/behavioral details.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently lists key conventions and states the output type. Front-loaded with the main action and follows with specifics.

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?

The description lists some conventions but says 'and more', leaving the full set of checks unclear. Without an output schema, the agent does not know the structure of the scored report or fix guidance. More detail on output format or examples would improve completeness.

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% (one parameter with description). The tool description repeats examples from the schema but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool validates a Lampa plugin against specific conventions (IIFE wrapping, strict mode, etc.) and returns a scored report with fix guidance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'risk_scan' or 'run_grep_checks'.

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 implies the tool should be used when checking a plugin for adherence to conventions, but does not explicitly state when to use it over similar siblings like 'risk_scan' or 'run_grep_checks'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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