dsh_plugin_list_installed

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. Listing is generally read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, doesn't require special permissions, or depends on a configured profile. The mention of 'configured DSH profile' adds some context, but lacks detail about failure modes or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states what the tool does. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or noise.

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 simple zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose. However, it could be more complete by explaining what 'installed' means (e.g., in the local profile vs. remote) and whether the list includes versions or other details. The presence of multiple sibling tools also calls for a brief note on how this differs from dsh_plugin_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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not mention parameters, and the empty schema confirms no input is needed. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 identifies the resource ('bundles and dependencies') plus the scope ('installed in the configured DSH profile'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dsh_plugin_list (which likely lists all available plugins) by adding the 'installed' qualifier.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or when to prefer dsh_plugin_list or dsh_plugin_status instead. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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