list_plugins

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (across all teams) and the fact that it returns id and code. It doesn't mention side effects, but it's clearly read-only. The description is transparent about the return value use.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately conveys the essential information. Every word earns its place; 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?

Given that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality: what it does, what it returns, and how the output is used. It could clarify that it returns a list, but 'list' implies multiple items, so it's nearly complete.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the output fields (id and code), but this dimension focuses on parameters; with zero parameters, no additional param info is needed, hence a 3.

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 states 'List the plugins you can access, across all your teams', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It explains the output contains id and code for use in other tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_comments or list_teams.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (to get accessible plugins) and how the output is used (as the 'plugin' argument for other tools). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling tools implies the scope.

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