plugins_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation (listing) and the scope (user-facing), which implies a read-only action, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, permission requirements, or filtering behavior.

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 four words and every word contributes: 'installed' specifies the resource state, 'plugins' the domain, and 'user-facing' distinguishes the list scope. There is no redundancy.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies resource and scope. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent to plugins_manager_list for administrative views.

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, so schema coverage is complete and there is nothing for the description to add. With 0 params, the baseline is 4.

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 identifies the resource ('installed plugins') and the scope ('user-facing list'), which distinguishes it from the sibling plugins_manager_list. It is a noun-phrase label rather than a full action sentence, but the tool name supplies the 'list' verb.

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 'user-facing' qualifier implies this is the appropriate tool for listing plugins visible to the current user, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over plugins_manager_list or mention any alternatives. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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