list_plugin_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, data source (js/plugins/*.js annotations + built-in allowlist), and the limitation that unlisted commands aren't validated—all adding context beyond tool name.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Includes only essential information—usage, alternative, and caveat—without waste.

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 tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, source, read-only nature, output shape, and a key limitation. No critical gaps for agent invocation.

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 100% for the single optional parameter pluginName (restrict to one plugin filename without .js). The description echoes 'Pass pluginName to narrow to one plugin' but adds little over the schema, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the tool lists plugin commands that create_plugin_command can validate, with a specific output structure (plugin filename → command key → args). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing create_plugin_command and scan_plugins.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use scan_plugins for the richer per-project view' and notes that an unlisted plugin command can still be built but won't be validated, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Also instructs how to narrow with pluginName.

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