List example plugins

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which provide minor behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, response structure, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise (two lines) and front-loads the core purpose. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint and auth class provides useful technical context without verbosity. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, existing output schema, rich annotations), the description is adequate but lacks nuance. It does not explain what 'example plugins' means, whether they are from a catalog or installed, or how the output is structured. While the annotations cover safety and idempotency, additional context about the return format would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the interface. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 'List example plugins', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_plugins or pc_get_plugins_tools, which also list plugin-related information. The additional HTTP route and auth class provide context but don't clarify the unique purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_plugins (for all plugins) or pc_get_plugins_tools (for plugin tools). The description omits any context on prerequisites, scope, or filtering, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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