hb_plug_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers or refreshes plugin discovery, whether results are cached, or what permissions are required. The minimal phrasing leaves key behavioral traits 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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 listing tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important contextual gaps. Most notably, it does not clarify how it relates to hb_plug_discover or whether listing implies prior discovery, and absent an output schema it gives no hint of what is returned.

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 no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool whose schema also has nothing to clarify.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List' plus 'local plugins'. It also scopes the resource to 'discovered' plugins, which helps distinguish it from raw discovery. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hb_plug_discover or hb_plug_info.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus hb_plug_discover, hb_plug_info, or hb_plug_run. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'List' and the 'discovered' qualifier.

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