Get Obsidian plugin details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It helpfully enumerates what is returned (downloads, latest version, last-update date, release count), which is real behavioral detail, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or what happens when the id is not found.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The lookup mechanics and return fields come first, then the decision context, which is the right front-loading for this tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. The only gap is failure behavior for a bad or unknown id, which an agent would likely want to know.

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 already carries an example ('dataview'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the id must be the exact directory id, distinguishing this from a fuzzy search input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up one plugin by exact id') and scopes it to a single entry, which implicitly separates it from the search/browse siblings. An agent can tell this is a by-id lookup rather than a listing.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to judge whether a plugin is alive or abandoned before deciding to build, fork, or contribute. It does not name search_plugins or top_plugins as alternatives for the discovery case, so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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