read_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the read-only nature through the verb 'Read', discloses the endpoint, and clarifies that source handling differs for Community vs Local plugins. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or explicitly confirm an absence of side effects.

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?

Two sentences, ~50 words, zero filler. The action and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by the two use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant marketing or restating of the name.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when in the workflow to use it, and that the result is plugin source text. Slightly more detail on response format or failure modes would push it to 5, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents plugin_id ('from search_plugins') and plugin_source ('Community' or 'Local'). The description adds marginal value by mapping plugin_source values to concrete use cases, but it does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the source of a classic plugin'), and includes the concrete HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v2/read-plugin-text). The two use cases — reading a Community plugin before adding it to a library, or a Local plugin before editing it — clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like save_plugin, create_plugin, verify_plugin, and copy_community_plugin_to_local, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear workflow context: use this when you need to understand a Community plugin before adding it to a library, or a Local plugin before editing it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions — for instance, it doesn't say to use search_plugins for discovery — so it stops one point short of full guidance.

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