List Capacitor plugins

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: the exact output fields, the `core` and `experimental` flags, and the specific ranking order (official, then Capawesome, then community). It also describes how sources map to plugin ecosystems. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact yet complete: it front-loads the core purpose, then use case, output shape, ranking behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence adds distinct information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies return fields and flags. It also covers ranking, parameter context, and routing to alternatives. The tool is simple enough that nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter is already thoroughly documented with defaults, enums, and filter behavior. The description adds some contextual color (e.g., 'official' means Capacitor team, 'community' means awesome-capacitorjs entries) but 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 states both a specific verb and resource: 'List Capacitor plugins', and distinguishes the two categories of plugins (official and community). It also clarifies the tool's purpose—finding a plugin before writing custom native code—and contrasts itself with get_doc_page for reading APIs, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to find a plugin for a native capability before writing custom native code') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance with alternatives ('Do not use this to read a plugin's API: call get_doc_page ... use the Capawesome MCP server'). No ambiguity remains.

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