plugin_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns one full document per plugin, lists the included fields (Id, Name, Enabled, Settings, Config), and narrows the scope to managed engine plugins. This is solid supplementary disclosure for a read-only list tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides targeted disambiguation and return information. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary for a zero-argument tool, but every sentence carries useful information, including the CLI-plugin exclusion and the return 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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is listed, what is excluded, how to use the results with sibling tools, and what the returned documents contain. No output schema exists, so the explicit return field list is valuable and sufficient.

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 the schema coverage is effectively complete with an empty object. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description appropriately spends no space on parameter semantics since there are none to explain.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List installed engine plugins with their full attrs.' It clearly scopes the tool to managed engine plugins and explicitly excludes docker CLI plugins, distinguishing it from related sibling tools like plugin_inspect, plugin_enable, and plugin_remove while avoiding confusion with compose/buildx/scout tools.

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 gives concrete use context: use it to find exact plugin names for plugin_inspect/plugin_enable/plugin_disable/plugin_remove, and explains that the Enabled key reveals plugin state. It also states what it does not cover (docker CLI plugins), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without needing to open sibling schemas.

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