adobe_listPlugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds the scope of the scan (it enumerates many artifact families, hinting at a broad, possibly slow filesystem sweep) and that CEP entries carry bundle ids/hosts/menus. It says nothing about cost, caching, or whether the scan recurses across every installed app version.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the artifact list, then the routing hint — a sensible order. The long enumeration is dense but earns its place because the schema has zero descriptions; only the missing mention of `limit` costs a point.

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?

With four optional params, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description carries the remaining load well: it names the artifact kinds and even hints at returned fields for CEP panels. Gaps are the unexplained `limit` and no indication of result ordering or whether installed file paths are returned.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for three of four parameters ('filter by app, kind, text'), mapping app/kind/filter to intent, but the `limit` parameter is never mentioned and no enum value is explained — the enum labels are only inferable from the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb ('discover everything installed') plus the resource and then enumerates exactly which artifact classes are covered (.aex/.prm/.8bf/.aip plugins, CEP, UXP, scripts, presets, MOGRTs, actions). An agent can distinguish this inventory tool from runtime-effect tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: for live in-app effect lists use ae_listEffects / pr_findEffects instead. It also states the three filter axes, implying when to narrow. It stops short of contrasting with nearby siblings such as adobe_extensions, adobe_pluginFile, or adobe_togglePlugin, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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