plugins_inspect_parameter_map

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by promising a conservative safety posture: unknown controls are never marked safe. This is a useful behavioral guarantee for an automation agent, though the concept of 'safe' is not elaborated.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with a key safety property. There is zero redundant language, and every phrase earns its place.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify how this relates to the sibling plugins_scan_parameters or what 'safe' means in output terms, but those are minor given the structured metadata.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, target, track_index, slot_index, and name_filter. The description's phrase 'bounded page' loosely ties to limit/offset but adds no concrete parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('exposed parameters') and immediately distinguishes this tool from a full scan by noting it reads a 'bounded page.' The phrase 'never marks unknown controls safe' adds a distinct behavioral signature not present in sibling tool names.

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?

It clearly implies this is for paged/partial inspection rather than whole-map scanning, so an agent gets context on when it fits. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like plugins_scan_parameters or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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