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 transparency. It mentions the return fields (ID, name, version, active status) which is good, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior, performance implications, or whether the list is cached. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains return values and usage scenarios.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (ID, name, version, active status). It also mentions filtering by name prefix. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention sorting behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the name_prefix parameter ('filter by name prefix') but does not elaborate on other parameters (query, active_only, limit) beyond what the schema already provides. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 the action ('List ServiceNow platform plugins on an instance') and the resource ('plugins'). It also specifies what is returned (ID, name, version, active status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like update sets or scoped apps.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'discover which plugins are installed/active or to find a specific plugin by name prefix.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use cases are sufficient for most scenarios.

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