apisix_get_plugin_schema

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context that the schema is version-sensitive and may differ from expectations (e.g., 'disable' moved into '_meta'), which informs the user about the dynamic nature of the output beyond the static hints.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core function and return content, the second provides rationale for using the tool. Every sentence earns its place, and it is properly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials. It does not describe the exact output format, but for this type of query tool, the provided detail is sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape, but is not critically incomplete.

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%, and the parameter description already provides an example ('如 key-auth、proxy-rewrite'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, 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 clearly states the tool queries a single plugin's schema, listing specific contents (field definitions, types, required fields, defaults, metadata_schema, consumer_schema). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on routes, services, or other resources, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implicitly explains when to use this tool by noting that APISIX plugin fields vary across versions and that real schema is better than hard-coded rules. This provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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