ecp_asdf_plugin_list_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states a read-like action (list) but does not disclose whether it requires any setup, the scope of the list (e.g., all sources), or potential errors. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb 'list', though the read-only nature is implied.

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?

One concise sentence with useful examples (nodejs, python, ruby) that clarify what asdf plugins look like. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter list tool, it is reasonably complete. The examples aid understanding. However, it doesn't clarify that the list is only of available (not installed) plugins, which might be inferred but not explicit enough for full contextual completeness with no annotations or output schema.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. Given no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 available to install), with examples. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like ecp_asdf_plugin_list and ecp_asdf_list_all_versions due to the explicit mention of 'available to install'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_asdf_plugin_list (which likely lists installed plugins) or ecp_asdf_list_all_versions. The phrase 'available to install' implies a use case, but no clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use context is provided.

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