dsh_plugin_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a cache and may be stale, which is useful behavioral context. Yet it does not specify return format, network behavior, or what happens when the cache is empty, leaving many behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 waste: the first states the core function, the second gives a conditional alternative. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It only addresses the cache refresh edge case and does not explain the meaning or interaction of the many filtering parameters, nor the return shape of the list.

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 only 29% (kind and query have descriptions), and the tool description adds no parameter information. The remaining five parameters (limit, offset, language, minStars, includeArchived) are left to bare schema constraints, leaving a significant documentation gap that the description fails to fill.

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 'List cached dsh-plugin repositories' clearly identifies the action (List) and resource (cached repositories), and the word 'cached' helps distinguish it from tools like dsh_plugin_search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from dsh_plugin_list_installed, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 instruction to call dsh_plugin_refresh_catalog when the cache is empty or stale provides an explicit alternative for a common usage scenario. However, it lacks broader guidance on when to choose this tool over dsh_plugin_search or dsh_plugin_list_installed, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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