suggest_plugin

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets recommendations' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, how recommendations are generated, or any constraints (e.g., limited to known plugins). The minimal description does not fully compensate for missing 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete in stating what the tool does. However, it could be improved by briefly indicating the type of response (e.g., 'returns a list of plugin names and descriptions') to set agent expectations.

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%, with both parameters (functionality and category) having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'based on desired functionality or use case.' Since schema coverage is high, the 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's purpose: 'Get recommendations for Leaflet plugins based on desired functionality or use case.' It uses a specific verb ('Get recommendations') and resource ('Leaflet plugins'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like add_marker or create_map, which perform actions rather than providing recommendations.

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 usage scenarios (when you need plugin recommendations based on functionality or use case) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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