plugins_atlas_inspect_loaded

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit of context by contrasting "live" live inventory against "static" Atlas knowledge. However, it does not explain behavioral details like how weak matches are handled, what matching entails, or what bounds the operation respects, so credit is limited.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action 'Match' and is not bloated, though its brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 cryptic terminology, low parameter documentation, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for correct selection and invocation. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the undefined parameters and domain-specific terms like 'Track B', 'weak', and 'target-aware.'

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 schema has only one required 'request' object containing three parameters (only_used, match_limit, include_weak) with no individual descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no meaning for these parameters, only the tautological label "Bounded live-inventory matching options." This is insufficient for an agent to know what values to supply.

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 uses specific-sounding but unexplained jargon: "target-aware live Track B inventory" and "static Atlas knowledge" never clearly identify the resource as loaded plug-ins. The annotation title clarifies that it matches loaded plug-ins to Plugin Atlas, but the description itself is too vague and does not distinguish this from sibling Atlas 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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like plugins_atlas_search, plugins_atlas_get_product, or plugins_scan_loaded_plugins. The phrase "live Track B inventory" implies inspecting loaded state, but it never explicitly states the use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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