List globally applied plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot: the exact result shape (`plugins` with ref/name/enabled/config plus `pluginCount`) and the scope boundary of what is returned.

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 one-line purpose followed by labeled USE WHEN, RETURNS and LIMITATIONS sections. Every sentence carries information — no restatement of the title and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the RETURNS block supplies the missing return-value information, and LIMITATIONS covers the scope trap. For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 by the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing filter parameters that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists plugins applied to every request') and pins down the scope precisely: plugins with no service, route or consumer scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_plugins_for_route, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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 USE WHEN block gives a concrete diagnostic scenario (ruling out a gateway-wide plugin before concluding a route lacks something) with a worked example of global key-auth. The LIMITATIONS block names the alternative tool (list_plugins_for_route) and the condition that selects it.

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