List every certified plugin

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantive context beyond them: it reads an embedded snapshot optionally refreshed from the network when reachable, requires no credentials, performs no writes, and repeated calls are identical until refresh. It also discloses the crucial caveat that the registry is an opt-in subset, so a short list is not evidence of ecosystem non-certification.

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?

Front-loads the scope and returned fields before the caveat, which is good structure, but the coverage warning is somewhat belabored — the 'short list is not evidence' point is restated with a concrete example that occupies several clauses. Efficient overall but not maximally tight.

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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it names every returned field (repository, letter grade, snapshot date, spec version, generation timestamp, total count, coverage object) and warns how to interpret count. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension is inherently satisfied. The description correctly confirms there is nothing to pass ('takes no parameters'), though there is no additional parameter meaning to add.

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 every plugin in the public dsh-plugin-certification registry') and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_certification, noting this returns the summary row only, so an agent can separate the two siblings without opening schemas.

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 explicit positive cases ('discover what is in the registry, or compare grades across plugins') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative name ('Use get_certification instead when you already know the plugin and want its full five-dimension evidence'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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