Get company-scoped plugin config

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

The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), but the key behavioral traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) are already covered by annotations. The description does not elaborate on what the config contains or any potential side effects.

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 (three lines) with no extraneous text. However, the second line ('Paperclip operation...') is internal implementation detail that may not be universally helpful. It remains concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite annotations covering safety, the description lacks parameter explanations, does not describe the output (even though an output schema exists), and offers no context about the config structure or error conditions. This leaves the agent with significant gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters (pluginId, companyId). The agent must infer their meanings from context. The title implies companyId is for company scoping, but no explicit guidance is given.

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 title and first sentence clearly state 'Get company-scoped plugin config', specifying the verb (get), resource (plugin config), and scope (company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id (which gets the plugin itself) and pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_config (which updates config).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus other plugin tools like pc_get_plugins for listing or pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_config for updating. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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