plugin_list

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

There are no annotations to indicate side effects or read-only behavior, and the description itself does not disclose that the tool is non-mutating. Since the description carries the full burden without annotations, the lack of any statement about side effects or immutability leaves this aspect unclear, though the nature of a list retrieval mitigates risk.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's simple scope: it states what is returned (a curated list of built-in instruments and effects) and the format (by name). It could benefit from noting that it only covers built-in plugins (which is implied by 'built-in') or whether it returns any additional metadata, but for a basic list retrieval, this is sufficient.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter schema to document, and the description correctly omits any parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are 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 the tool's function: returning a curated list of built-in instruments and effects by name. It distinguishes itself from plugin_discover (which likely handles external plugin discovery) and other plugin-related tools by specifying 'built-in' and 'by name'.

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?

While the description implies usage (e.g., when you need to know available built-in plugins), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like plugin_discover or plugin_add. The context of sibling tools provides some implicit guidance, but explicit conditions are missing.

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