list_plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'list' which implies reading, but does not explicitly state it's read-only, safe, or discuss authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is a gap.

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 immediately states the action and outputs. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but the absence of that is minor. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its low complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no parameter information but is not required to. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly avoids extraneous detail.

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 'loaded plugins and custom rule counts', specifying both the resource and the data provided. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'list_audit_events' or various audit/scan tools, but could be more specific about the context (e.g., plugins for rule engine).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied as a simple listing, but no exclusions or comparative context are provided. Since it's a straightforward list, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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