核对插件安装状态

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

Adds context beyond the annotations by disclosing the authoritative data source and bounding scope (no marketplace pull, no log scan), and it implies the returned fields (version, enabled). It does not reconcile the readOnlyHint=false annotation with the read-oriented wording, nor does it say whether repeated calls are cheap or require auth — modest gaps the annotations do not cover.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: mechanism first, then what is returned, then what is out of scope. It could have been front-loaded with the action rather than the transport path, but it is efficient overall.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming version and enabled state, plus the source of truth and exclusions. The one gap is that the readOnlyHint=false annotation is left unexplained for what reads like a pure status check.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (已安装插件版本和启用状态) plus the exact backend path (app-server plugin/installed), so the agent knows precisely what will be returned. It does not name a sibling tool by name, but the two negative scopes (no remote marketplace catalog, no activity-log scan) further narrow the intent.

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 '不拉取远程市场目录，不扫描活动日志' clause gives implicit when-not guidance, which is useful for steering away from catalog or log queries. However, there is no positive trigger ('use this when you need to verify whether a plugin is enabled before...') and no alternative tool is named among the siblings.

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