get_editor_plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by saying the data comes from saved enablement rather than a running editor and that live checkbox state is unavailable. This prevents a common misuse (expecting real-time editor state). It could still note whether a missing project config yields an error or an empty list.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the key limitation immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish scope and read semantics, which it does. The remaining gap is the undocumented projectPath argument, which neither schema nor description clarifies.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter projectPath has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about what path form is expected (project root vs. project.godot file) or whether it must be an existing project, leaving the only input undocumented.

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 and resource (list installed editor plugins) plus the exact data returned (saved enablement), and explicitly scopes it away from live editor state. An agent can distinguish it from enable_editor_plugin / disable_editor_plugin without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'without executing Godot' and 'does not report the live editor checkbox state' clearly establish the offline/inspection context in which this tool is correct. It stops short of explicitly naming the mutation siblings (enable_editor_plugin/disable_editor_plugin) as the alternative for changing state, so a routing inference is still required.

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