Get a plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class ('board'), providing minor behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 complex domain with many plugin-related sibling tools and only one parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a plugin is, what the response contains (though output schema exists), or any prerequisites. More context is needed for an AI agent to use this tool appropriately.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description does not explain the parameters either (e.g., what 'pluginId' is or how to obtain it). The schema is clear but lacks textual guidance.

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 'Get a plugin' and specifies the HTTP method and path. It is clear that the tool retrieves a single plugin by ID, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_plugins (list all plugins) or other plugin-specific tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pc_get_plugins for listing, pc_get_plugins_tools for tools within a plugin). The description lacks explicit context for usage.

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