List plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the administrator-only authorization requirement and confirming that the result includes activation status and version, which is meaningful for an agent deciding whether this call is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by communicating the critical authorization constraint. Every word contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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 read-only listing tool with all parameters optional and fully documented in the schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the required permission level, the scope of results, and the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not clearly necessary for a plugin listing, especially given the annotations already establish the operation as read-only and safe.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no extra semantic nuance about how search, status, or site_id behave beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every plugin installed on the site') and tells the agent exactly what information is returned: activation status and version. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like search_plugins or get_plugin_info, which imply narrower or different retrieval semantics.

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 gives a clear usage context by stating that listing plugins requires an Administrator account and that lower roles get no plugin data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer search_plugins over this tool, but the 'every plugin' phrasing and the optional search/status parameters imply the tool's scope well enough.

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