Unraid API plugins

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the resource scope 'loaded API plugins and module capabilities' but no further behavioral context such as auth needs, output volume, or operational caveats. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and scope clearly and economically.

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 read-only list operation, the description conveys the essential purpose and high-level return content. However, because there is no output schema, the description could slightly expand on what 'module capabilities' includes or what shape the list takes, though this is not a major gap.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps.

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 verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('loaded API plugins and module capabilities'), which separates it from sibling tools like unraid_v4371_query_installed_unraid_plugins. However, it stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from related plugin tools, and 'module capabilities' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as unraid_v4371_query_installed_unraid_plugins or unraid_v4371_query_plugin_install_operations. The agent must infer intent purely from the short description and tool name.

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