trmnl_list_my_plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail (all statuses: development, in_review, published) but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or result limits.

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?

Three short lines with the key scope statement front-loaded. The middle line is a fragment ('Plugins you author against the third-party plugin API, whatever their status...') but it is information-dense and not padded.

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 read-only list tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, this covers purpose, scope, and exclusions adequately. Knowing the fields of a returned plugin entry would help, but that is a minor gap for a listing endpoint.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter is 'profile', fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the third-party plugins you are building') and scopes it to plugins authored against the third-party plugin API rather than installed settings or recipes. The scope distinction from recipes is explicit, though it does not contrast with the similarly named trmnl_list_plugins.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (your own authored plugins, any status) and an explicit exclusion: 'Recipes are plugin settings, not listed here.' It does not name the alternative tool an agent should pick when it wants other plugin scopes, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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