List plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only listing operation through 'Lists', which is helpful, but doesn't describe output format, whether it returns both plugin ids and names, pagination behavior, or auth requirements. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable but lean.

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?

Single concise sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary action first, then examples and return-value hint. Appropriate for a simple read-only listing tool.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose well. However, for a tool that returns a list of plugins (presumably including structured data), clarification of what fields are returned and whether ids can be used for subsequent calls would improve completeness, since the description mentions 'ids' without elaborating their role.

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 coverage is 100% (workspaceId is documented in the schema). The description's mention of 'and their ids' clarifies the return value purpose, which helps the agent understand why return values matter (collecting ids for later use). With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds a bit beyond baseline by indicating the purpose of getting ids.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Lists available Appsmith plugins') with explicit examples (Postgres, REST API, MongoDB). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on plugins, which is distinct from list_applications, list_datasources, etc. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from list_datasources since plugins and datasources are related Appsmith concepts.

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 implies usage (listing plugins to obtain their ids), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor when the workspaceId param would be helpful. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance given.

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