ecp_asdf_plugin_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the operation is scoped to 'this account's container' and implies a read-only list operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe any output format or potential limitations. Basic transparency is present, but richer behavioral context (e.g., return structure, pagination) is missing.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It begins with the verb and clearly communicates the action and scope, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 should at least hint at the return value. It says 'List ... plugins' but does not specify whether the output is a list of plugin names, versions, or additional metadata. It also does not mention that the operation is read-only, though that is implied. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not fully 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 does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion; it simply lists what the tool returns, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('asdf plugins currently installed on this account's container'), including a scope qualifier that distinguishes it from potential siblings like ecp_asdf_plugin_list_all. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecp_asdf_plugin_list_all or ecp_asdf_list_installed_versions. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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