list_plugins

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read target (~/.gemini/config/plugins) and the returned content (manifests, descriptions, versions, skills, subagents). It does not, however, state that the operation is side-effect free or read-only, nor whether results are paginated or cached.

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 leading with the verb and resource, followed by an enumeration of contents. Slightly list-heavy at the tail, but every clause adds information rather than padding.

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 listing with no output schema, the description explains what comes back well enough to set expectations. Minor gap: no statement of behavior for empty results or how workspace vs. global entries are merged or labeled.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description also clarifies the scope of enumeration (workspace plus global configuration directory), which is the only 'parameter-like' semantic an agent could misread.

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 ('Lists all installed Antigravity plugins') and adds scope ('across workspace and global configurations'). An agent can distinguish it from get_plugin_details as the bulk-enumeration variant, though the description never names that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_plugin_details, get_antigravity_status, or list_skills. The only inference available is that 'Lists all' implies bulk retrieval, which the agent must derive on its own.

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