list_plugins

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: it returns information about all discovered plugins, lists return fields (name, hooks, executors, etc.), and implies read-only nature. No side effects mentioned, but appropriate for a list tool.

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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured with bullet points and example queries. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 (list with no parameters) and presence of output schema (described in detail), the description is complete. Covers purpose, usage triggers, behavioral details, and return fields with no gaps.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no parameter info (none exist), which is fine. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get information about installed Airflow plugins' with specific verb and resource. Provides example user queries that map directly to this tool, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_providers' or 'list_dags'.

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 lists when to use via example user questions (e.g., 'What plugins are installed?', 'Is plugin X installed?'). Provides context on what plugins are, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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