Get plugin dashboard data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, and 'Authorization class: board' for permissions. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid inputs, which is acceptable given the annotations lower the burden.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, omitting important details about parameters and output. It could be more structured but remains acceptable in length.

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 having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what 'dashboard data' contains, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. For a simple tool with one parameter, more context about the output is needed to make informed decisions.

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 descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning to the pluginId parameter beyond its presence in the endpoint URL. No format, constraints, or examples are provided. This is a significant gap.

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 action 'Get plugin dashboard data' and the resource 'plugin dashboard'. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which aligns with the title. However, it does not differentiate from similar plugin retrieval tools like pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id or pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id_health, lacking specific scope of what 'dashboard data' includes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The only extra information is 'Authorization class: board', which hints at access requirements but not usage context.

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