List Company Plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that the tool 'Supports search, filtering, and pagination,' which is useful but does not go beyond that. Since the safety profile is covered by annotations, this is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then notes capabilities. No wasted words.

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?

Given a simple listing tool with no output schema and robust annotations, the description covers the essential scope and capabilities. It does not mention response format or limitations, but for this tool those are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

All six parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description's mention of search/filter/pagination maps to parameters but does not add extra semantics like formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'WordPress plugins', and the scope 'across all sites in your Kinsta company' clearly. This distinguishes it from site-specific tools like kinsta_plugins_list or kinsta_plugins_list-wp without needing to inspect them.

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 description explicitly scopes the operation to all sites in the company, providing clear context that this is for company-wide listing rather than per-site. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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