List connector plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valuable behavioral detail that Debezium connectors are included, which is not captured by annotations. This is a meaningful addition without redundancy, so the description complements the structured metadata well.

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, tightly-phrased sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is zero fluff or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what it lists (plugin classes) and its scope (including Debezium). There are no complex inputs, side effects, or return-value expectations that need elaboration, so the description is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the schema is empty, so the description need not explain any input semantics. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for in this dimension.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connector plugin classes installed on the worker'), and explicitly notes Debezium connectors are included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling like 'list_connectors' which likely lists actual connectors rather than plugin classes. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no guidance such as 'use list_connectors for active connectors instead'. Given the simple nature and clear name, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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