list_plugin_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two return traits (results come in processing order and include bypass state), but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or pagination. For a plain list tool this is adequate but thin.

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 with no filler; every clause (pipeline scope, ordering, bypass state) conveys information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool an agent must route between several plugin-related siblings, the description gives no guidance on when to call it and no clarifying detail on the sole enum parameter.

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%, but there is only one parameter and its enum values (input/output) are self-explanatory. The description's phrase 'in a pipeline' loosely ties the parameter to the target chain without adding format or selection detail 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?

The description names a specific resource (active plugins) and scope (in a pipeline), plus the delivered attributes (processing order, bypass state), which clearly distinguishes it from the single-item siblings get_plugin_property and bypass_plugin. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement, no condition selecting this over get_plugin_property, get_status, or bypass_plugin, and no prerequisites. The use case is only inferable from the phrase 'active plugins in a pipeline'.

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