list_certified

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all plugins, not a filtered subset, and includes the output fields. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any access requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated for a list operation.

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, pointed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the output fields. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or repetition.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key information: what is listed, from where, and which attributes are returned. It could be more complete by noting ordering or pagination, but the core calling context is sufficiently clear.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because the schema is empty and there is nothing to explain.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every plugin in the public dsh-plugin-certification registry'), and names the returned attributes (repo, grade, snapshot date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_certification or certification_spec, which suggest retrieving a single item or a spec rather than the full list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. While the simple zero-parameter interface reduces ambiguity, the presence of sibling tools makes the lack of explicit routing a notable gap.

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