trmnl_list_plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context about what the result set contains (catalog plus own plugins regardless of status), but says nothing about return shape, whether the default response is a flat array versus a cursor page, or result volume 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: scope first, next-step hint second, endpoint reference last. No filler, though the bare 'TRMNL GET /api/plugins' line adds little for an agent that cannot make raw HTTP calls.

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 and safety already covered by annotations, the description is close to adequate, but for a listing tool with a nested query object and dual-mode responses (array vs. cursor page) an agent still lacks guidance on pagination behavior and on how to narrow a large catalog down.

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 only 50% — the top-level 'query' object and its nesting are undocumented in the description, which never mentions free-text search, category filtering, cursor paging, or page_size. The description also never explains the 'profile' selector's effect, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 plugins available to install') and defines scope precisely: the published catalog of native and third-party plugins plus the caller's own third-party plugins at any status. That scope language implicitly distinguishes it from trmnl_list_my_plugins and trmnl_catalog_search, though neither sibling is named.

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?

Provides a forward pointer ('Send a plugin id to createPluginSetting'), which tells the agent what to do with results but not when to prefer this tool over trmnl_list_my_plugins or trmnl_catalog_search. Usage is implied by the scope sentence rather than stated as an explicit decision rule.

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