List plugins

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds context by characterizing plugins as external programs that edit through the HTTP API. It doesn't disclose additional operational behavior such as auth needs or list completeness, but with annotations covering the main trait this is acceptable.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and output shape and ends with the cross-reference to run_plugin. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema and sibling guidance, the description covers everything an agent needs: what will be returned, that the operation is safe, and how to act on a result.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is a 4.

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 the resource (plugins) and the action (list) explicitly, identifies the output rows, and distinguishes itself from run_plugin by mentioning how to execute one. This is a specific, differentiated definition.

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?

It gives direct routing guidance: 'Run one with run_plugin.' It does not spell out when not to use the tool or compare with other list-like siblings, but for a list operation with an obvious run counterpart this is sufficient context.

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