list_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read operation that returns a sorted list. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences in Chinese. The first sentence states the primary function, the second lists example plugin capabilities, and the third specifies sorting and content. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured; however, it earns a 4 for being clear and front-loaded.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential details: it lists all plugins, sorted by downloads, with name, author, and description. However, it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., JSON array) or mention pagination limits. For a simple list tool, this is moderately 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. Since there are no parameters, the description adds value by explaining what the tool does. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully describes parameter expectations, and the description adds no additional constraints or semantics beyond the schema.

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 queries the AScript online plugin repository and returns a list of all available plugins. It specifies the sorting order (by downloads) and included fields (name, author, description). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_plugin_detail, which presumably retrieves details for a single plugin.

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 does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plugin_detail or get_module_apis. While the purpose of listing all plugins is clear, it lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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