List installed plugins (FL DB on disk)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. Description adds that it's a directory listing, read-only, and that categorization is a rough keyword grouping, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is informative but slightly verbose; each sentence adds value, but could be tightened. Front-loaded with key action and result.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, source, limitations, and how to interpret results. No gaps remain.

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?

Only one parameter (kind) with full schema coverage. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description, which already clearly lists valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads FL's installed-plugin database from disk to produce a de-duped, categorized list of owned plugins. It explicitly distinguishes from FL's API (which only sees loaded plugins) and from sibling tools like fl_plugin_list.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: bypasses FL API (only sees loaded plugins), cannot load plugins, intended for library-aware suggestions. Also notes the categorization is rough and that Claude should apply its own plugin knowledge, setting expectations clearly.

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