list_plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or describe the return format, leaving an agent to infer behavior from the tool name alone.

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 short sentence fragment with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though the fragmentary phrasing is slightly less structured than a complete sentence.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description gives the essential idea that it returns plugin names usable by add_channel and add_effect. With no output schema, however, it does not explain the return shape or whether plugins are grouped by type, leaving a modest gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 identifies the resource as instrument and effect plugin names and distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming add_channel and add_effect as consumers. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns,' but the intended purpose is still easy to infer.

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?

By saying the names are what add_channel and add_effect take, it implies this tool should be used to discover valid plugin values before calling those tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to call it, whether there are alternatives, or any prerequisites.

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