List connector plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. The description clearly indicates a non-mutating list operation via 'List' and adds useful scope: 'installed on the worker' and '(incl. Debezium connectors)'. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe how the returned plugin classes are structured, so some behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. There is no fluff, the phrase 'installed on the worker' is useful, and the parenthetical is a notable exception detail. Highly economical.

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?

The description states what is listed and the scope, but there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., names only, full class structure, or metadata). For a zero-parameter tool, the information is adequate, but an agent cannot anticipate whether the output is a list of strings, objects, or a keyed map.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the context signals confirm no required parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies here, and the description's scope comment is enough.

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 and resource: 'List the connector plugin classes installed on the worker' — this is precise and distinguishes it from listing actual connector instances, like list_connectors. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling in the description, so differentiation is implied rather than stated, keeping it below a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says what it returns (connector plugin classes) but does not mention the relationship to list_connectors or any selection criteria like 'use this when you need available plugin types'. The usage context is only implied by the word 'classes'.

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