List Omarchy shell plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that no install, update, or network access occurs, which conveys that this is a safe, read-only operation. It adds useful context about what the tool does NOT do, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call it. However, it doesn't elaborate on the 'state' field or any potential side effects like reading local files, though that seems minor for a list operation.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The primary action and scope ('List locally discovered plugins and their state') is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a crucial safety constraint. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately minimal and structured for quick scanning.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it lists, the scope (locally discovered), and the side-effect-free nature. It doesn't describe the return format (e.g., whether it includes names, paths, versions), but that is likely inferable from the tool's purpose and sibling tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete, though a brief note on output structure would make it a 5.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, which is fully covered by the schema (100%). The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids introducing fictional parameters. No deduction is needed.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('locally discovered plugins'), and scope ('and their state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling plugin tools (plugin_local_detail, plugin_local_enable, etc.) by focusing on listing rather than modifying, and explicitly notes it does not install/update. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from others.

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 'This performs no install, update, or network access' provides clear exclusion criteria, implicitly telling the agent to use this tool when a read-only overview is needed and to use other tools for mutations. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, the negative constraints effectively communicate when to use this tool. A slightly more explicit pointer to plugin_local_detail or plugin_validate would make it a 5.

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