List plugins

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds real context beyond them: the exact return shape (one entry per plugin with file, name, version, active), the multisite caveat that network-activated plugins show false, and the capability required. These are non-obvious behavioral details an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first sentence, with caveats and return fields following. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly run-on, packing returns, exclusions, and permissions into one block, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value itself — and it does, enumerating file/name/version/active plus the meaning of 'active' on multisite. Combined with the capability requirement and the exclusion list, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline applies. The description correctly spends no effort on parameters and instead documents the output fields, which is the right allocation.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("List the installed plugins in wp-content/plugins") with an added scope qualifier ("all in one answer (no paging)"). It is clearly distinguishable from wp_get_update_status, which it names, and from unrelated siblings like wp_list_themes or wp_list_users.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions (must-use plugins and drop-ins are not listed), routes the agent to the alternative for a related need ("Pending updates are reported by wp_get_update_status"), and states the prerequisite ("Requires activate_plugins"). An agent can decide when to call this versus the alternative without inference.

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