List plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about plugins being external programs editing via HTTP API, but says nothing about failures, unavailable plugins, or whether the list is static or dynamic.

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?

One compact line that front-loads what plugins are, then the row shape, then the routing hint. No filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, this covers purpose, return shape, and the execution alternative. Nothing essential is missing, though it is minimal.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's [name,title,description] notation describes the row shape rather than parameters, adding no parameter burden but also no confusion.

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 a specific resource (plugins) and clarifies what they are — external programs editing through the HTTP API — plus the shape of each returned row. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling run_plugin, which executes rather than lists.

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?

'Run one with run_plugin' explicitly routes execution to the sibling tool, which is a clear alternative. It does not, however, state when this listing tool itself is appropriate (e.g., discovery before running, or checking availability).

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