list_game_feature_plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description redundantly restates 'Read-only' but does add 'synchronous', which the annotations do not disclose. It does not cover pagination, cost, or refresh behavior, so it adds only modest value beyond the structured fields.

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 plus a compact Returns block, with the scope and the enumeration count front-loaded. Every element earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ plugins, count } with per-plugin name/url/loaded_as_built_in/state), which is exactly the compensation needed for a list tool with no parameters. It stops short of enumerating possible 'state' values, a minor residual gap.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids spurious parameter discussion.

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 (Enumerate), resource (Game Feature Plugins), and scope (built-in + registered, with each one's current state). An agent can distinguish it from sibling get_game_feature_plugin_state, which targets a single plugin, without opening the schema.

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 enumeration scope ('every Game Feature Plugin the subsystem knows about, built-in + registered') implies a listing use case, which is adequate context. However, it never names the single-plugin alternative (get_game_feature_plugin_state) or states when-not to use this tool, so usage is only implied rather than guided.

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