plugins_list_available

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

Annotations only carry limited hints, so the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it opens/closes the native menu and changes focus. It also clarifies what the result represents and does not represent. No contradiction is present, though it could be more precise about focus restoration or missing menu handling.

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?

Three compact sentences contain no filler: the action and side effect are front-loaded, output scope is stated, and the limitation is given. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With empty parameters, an output schema, and a clear description of the behavioral aim and limitations, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential to the caller is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so parameter spacing is already fully documented by the empty input schema. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (native Add menu on macOS), the action (Read), and the exact output (loadable plugin names and instrument/effect kinds). It also distinguishes this from licensing proof and an exhaustive installed scan, differentiating it from siblings like plugins_scan_loaded_plugins.

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 clear exclusions: it is menu availability, not proof of licensing or an exhaustive installed scan. However, it never names an alternative tool for those use cases, so the when-versus-alternatives guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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