actiond_plugins_list

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

The description explicitly states the operation is read-only and positions it as a discovery step before mutations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description reinforces rather than significantly extends this, but it does add helpful context about its role relative to mutation tools.

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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail while including the key distinctions from sibling tools and the returned entry fields.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, what each entry contains, that it is read-only, and how it relates to the enable/disable and recommend tools. No additional context is needed to call it correctly.

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 no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description instead describes the output fields, which is the relevant information for a parameterless list operation.

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 that the tool lists every CI/CD plugin registered in ActionD, including both enabled and disabled plugins, and enumerates the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like actiond_plugin_enable, actiond_plugin_disable, and actiond_plugins_recommend.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to discover valid plugin names before calling enable/disable, and contrasts it with actiond_plugins_recommend for when suggestions are wanted instead of a raw inventory. This gives clear when-to-use guidance versus alternatives.

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