plugins_scan_loaded_plugins

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'without inserting or changing anything', which reinforces the read-only behavior but does not go beyond the annotations. It does not mention response format, pagination, or the effect of the include_channel_generators flag on the response contract. Since annotations carry most of the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the action and non-mutating property with zero extraneous words. It is perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple read-only inventory tool with a clear output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only missing nuance is explicitly noting that the include_channel_generators flag affects the response contract, but that is already documented in the schema. The description covers the core purpose accurately, so it is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Apply the conservative used-track heuristic.' and the note about preserving 0.11 response contract). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it merely meets the baseline without enhancing clarity beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb 'inventory' and a clear resource 'loaded plug-ins', explicitly noting it does not mutate anything. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugins_scan_parameters (which focuses on parameters) and plugins_load (which loads plugins). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this is for taking stock of loaded plugins, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like plugins_scan_parameters or plugins_list_available. However, the read-only nature is implied and it is intuitive enough that an agent would use this to enumerate current plugins. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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