pws_list_optional_integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying 'sanitized read-only capabilities' and 'currently provide', indicating that the data is filtered and dynamic, and that plugins are independently installed (not installed by this tool). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 deliver the essential information with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies an important behavioral nuance, earning 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 read-only, zero-parameter listing tool, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what is discovered, notes the read-only and sanitized nature, and preempts concerns about missing plugins. No output schema exists, but the tool's simplicity makes the description complete.

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, so the description need not explain any. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description provides all necessary semantic context for invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and clearly identifies the resource: compatible, independently installed PWS community plugins and their sanitized read-only capabilities. This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on workers, shows, or other entities.

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 states that missing plugins are normal and never required, which guides the agent not to treat missing integrations as errors. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves this purpose, so the context is clear.

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