列出插件分类

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the shape of the return payload (categories plus plugin package names and counts), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 with no wasted framing; the parenthetical category enumeration is informative rather than filler. Slightly dense, but nothing should be cut.

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-required-parameter, single-boolean read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return content, and follow-up usage. Only the explicit relationship to search_plugins is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents include_plugins fully. The description's mention of '插件包名与数量' loosely maps to that toggle but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (DSH 插件市场的分类), and even enumerates the six category values, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from search_plugins via '可用于后续按分类检索' rather than naming the sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides clear context for use: this is a discovery step that precedes category-based retrieval. It does not state when NOT to use it or name search_plugins directly as the alternative, so it stops short of the explicit routing a 5 requires.

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