gh_plugin_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it returns one entry per GH_AssemblyInfo library and emphasizing 'currently loaded,' which clarifies that only plugins loaded in the live session are listed, not merely installed ones.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the output shape, then the motivating use case. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only, zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is enumerated, what each entry contains, and when an agent should call it. No missing prerequisites, side-effect warnings, or return-value explanations are needed.

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 input schema contains no real parameters—only an empty 'args' object—so there is little for the description to explain. A baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not explicitly say 'takes no arguments,' but the schema itself already makes that evident.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate Grasshopper plugin libraries currently loaded.' It clearly differentiates from sibling component-oriented tools like gh_component_list and gh_components_search by targeting plugin assemblies rather than canvas components, and it lists the returned fields (id, name, author, version, description, path).

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 gives a concrete use case: discover whether the user has LunchBox, Ladybug, Kangaroo, etc. installed before attempting to drop in a custom component. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the provided context makes the intended invocation scenario clear.

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