aism_plugins_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that identifiers and status are returned, which is useful context, but it says nothing about network calls to the site, result size, or pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence with no boilerplate or repetition. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves little room for the guidance an agent might need.

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 simple, annotated, read-only list tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, this is close to complete. The description even notes the key return fields (identifiers/status); only pagination and site-resolution behavior are unaddressed.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'site' and its aism_sites reference. The description adds nothing to the parameter's meaning, which fits the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource: 'List installed plugins and their identifiers/status.' That clearly separates it from siblings like aism_plugin_install, aism_plugin_update, and aism_plugin_action, but it never names an alternative or states the reverse distinction explicitly.

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?

Use is implied — enumerate plugins before calling aism_plugin_update or aism_plugin_action — but no sentence says when to use this instead of aism_discover or aism_sites, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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