get_plugin_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The phrase 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and 'depth=1' hints at an API detail, but it does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or return format specifics. For a simple list operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without extra fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters) and that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. The mention of 'all installed plugins' and 'metadata' is adequate for an agent to understand the response scope.

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 is empty, giving a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine since there are no parameters to document.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'all installed Jenkins plugins' and adds detail about metadata and depth. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle builds, jobs, queues, and nodes.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve plugin information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since no sibling tool lists plugins, the purpose alone suggests usage, but there is no direct guidance.

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