verify_plugin

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior context: the HTTP method (POST), the endpoint, and the return type (boolean). However, it does not state error behavior, whether any state changes occur, or permission requirements — though for an existence check these risks are low, the disclosure is not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the return type and a usage hint. Every clause earns its place; the endpoint reference adds precision without bloat.

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 boolean check with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, endpoint, return type, and when to call it. Minor gaps remain — notably the meaning/behavior of a false result versus an error — 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% — both community and plugin_id are described in the input schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds contextual meaning (classic plugin, library stack) that indirectly clarifies plugin_id's role, but it provides no param-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a classic plugin exists on the server.' The 'classic' qualifier distinguishes it from flow-plugin tools (search_flow_plugins), and 'exists' differentiates it from verify_folder_exists (folder vs plugin) and search_plugins (searching vs existence check). The endpoint and boolean return tighten the definition further.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: 'use it before adding a plugin to a library's stack.' This positions the tool as a pre-condition check. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when to prefer read_plugin or search_plugins), so it stops short of the full 5.

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