scan_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it parses specific files, reports enabled state, notes that disabled plugin commands never run, and flags a limitation about MZ's lack of required-argument annotations. It also declares itself read-only, which is critical safety information.

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 longer than one sentence but every clause earns its place, covering purpose, output, usage, and a limitation. It front-loads the main action and remains well structured, though a slightly tighter wording could improve conciseness.

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?

Considering there is no output schema, the description fully specifies what will be reported (command key, label, description, args with name/type/default, enabled status). It also provides essential context about the relationship with create_plugin_command and a key limitation, making the tool's behavior clear and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical effect of each parameter ('narrow to one plugin', 'skip plugins that are installed but switched off') and ties them to the tool's purpose, going slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('the plugin commands this project actually has'), and details exactly what it parses and reports. It clearly distinguishes itself from create_plugin_command by framing as a discovery tool, and the mention of enabled/disabled state adds unique scope.

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 when to use it ('Use it to find out what create_plugin_command can call') and when not needed ('create_plugin_command validates against this scan automatically, so you don't need to call this first'). It also explains the optional filters (pluginName, enabledOnly), making usage context clear.

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