list_registered_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. It also does not clarify the role of the environment parameter or whether the tool requires a selected environment. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and uses parentheticals to clarify technical terms. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or irrelevant content. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 tool has a single optional parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what the response looks like or what information is included. It does not mention return values, whether it returns both packages and assemblies in one call, or any details about the environment parameter. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'environment' parameter. It does not explain what the environment parameter means, whether it's optional or required, or how it affects the results. The phrase 'in the environment' hints at scoping but does not clarify that the parameter can be left empty or what values are valid. This is insufficient given the lack of schema documentation.

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 lists plug-in packages and assemblies registered in the environment, using specific terms (pluginpackages, pluginassemblies) that distinguish it from siblings like list_plugin_types and list_steps. The verb 'List' is specific, and the scope 'registered in the environment' adds context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or criteria for selection, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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