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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the catalog is scoped to name-referenced plugins only, and URL-referenced plugins are intentionally absent. This sets accurate expectations about the result set.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose and the key exclusion without any filler. The main scoping statement comes first, and the GitHub URL exclusion is a necessary second sentence. Every word 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?

For a parameterless list tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what the catalog contains, how plugins are referenced, and what is not included. There is no output schema, but the return concept—a list of pluginnames—is simple enough that no further detail is needed.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on result scope rather than arguments. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: listing plugins that can be referenced by name in a build's plugins array. It also differentiates itself from the broader category by explicitly noting that public GitHub repository URL plugins are not enumerated, making its scope clear relative to potential alternatives.

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 context: use this tool when you need plugins that can be referenced by name in a build. It also provides an explicit exclusion—GitHub repository URL plugins are not included—which helps an agent avoid misusing it. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, but the usage boundary is clear enough.

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