mix_inspect_plugin_compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is established. The description contributes scope: it reports only loaded effects and only those with known adapters, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe the response format or the effect of only_used, but those are covered by the output schema and parameter schema.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler; the core object (loaded effects) and the condition (known parameter-role adapters) come first. It earns its place, though 'parameter-role adapters' is domain jargon that is not expanded.

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 read-only tool with one optional well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description gives the essential semantic. It leaves minor gaps around when to use this versus sibling inspection/scanning tools and what an adapter/profile match means, but overall it is sufficient for a simple report tool.

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 only parameter, only_used, has a complete schema description plus a default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to repeat or expand on it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description has a specific verb ('Report'), a specific resource ('loaded effects'), and a precise filter ('known parameter-role adapters'), so an agent can understand this is an inspection/compatibility reporting tool. It is not a tautology, and it reads differently from parameter-scanning or loading siblings. However, it does not explicitly call out how it differs from nearby tools such as plugins_scan_loaded_plugins or mix_list_plugin_profiles.

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 read-only phrasing implies use when an agent needs to know which loaded effects already have parameter-role adapter coverage, likely before planning parameter assignments. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use context and does not name alternatives among the many inspection tools, so the agent must infer the selection from the tool name and wording.

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