geck_list_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention how the optional parameters affect behavior, whether BSA files are included by default, or how a null game_dir is resolved.

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. Every word earns its place, and the verb and object are immediately clear.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool and an output schema exists, so return-value coverage is not a concern. However, the description leaves ambiguity around the optional parameters and does not distinguish this listing operation from load-order or plugin-status operations, making it only minimally complete.

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 the two parameters, but it does not explain game_dir or include_bsa. The parameter names and defaults provide some hint, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the tool's overall purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('plugin files in the Fallout 3 Data folder'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like geck_list_windows, geck_list_processes, and geck_read_load_order, which focus on different resources or aspects.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as geck_read_load_order or geck_plugin_status. The use case is only implicit in the verb 'List', with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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