get_plugins_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description minimalistically conveys a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as error handling, output format, or side effects, leaving gaps for the agent.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return value, parameter constraints, or potential issues, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 sole parameter 'projectPath' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description fails to explain its role or acceptable values. The mention of 'js/plugins.js' hints at context but doesn't clarify the parameter's 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'plugins configuration', and the source file 'js/plugins.js'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_plugins_config' which implies writing.

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 implicitly indicates usage for reading plugins config versus updating, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'read_data_file' or context for selecting.

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