list_plugins

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read-like operation (listing), which is likely safe, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or has no side effects. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It states what it lists and what information is provided (status). There are no gaps for the intended use case.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the detail that it lists status, which provides meaning beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool lists all discovered plugins and their status. The verb 'List' and resource 'plugins' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on plugins, which is a distinct resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it is used to obtain plugin information, but there is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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