List configured plugins

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, and the description adds substantial context beyond it: it defines the cross-check behavior against @param blocks, the meaning of 'undeclared', 'unset' (running on @default), and 'fileExists: false' (plugin enabled but script missing, which halts the game at boot). That is real behavioral disclosure an agent could not infer from 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the diagnostic semantics. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence is long enough that it could be split for scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it enumerates the reported fields and explains the edge-case values (undeclared, unset, fileExists:false) including the boot-failure consequence. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result 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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-file scan and doesn't invent parameters that don't exist.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read js/plugins.js and report every entry in load order' with the exact fields surfaced (enabled, description, stored params). This distinguishes it cleanly from read_plugin_source (single file) and enable_plugin/patch_plugin (mutations) without the reader opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (report every entry in the plugins file), but the description never names an alternative or a when-not condition, e.g. 'to inspect one plugin's source use read_plugin_source' or 'to change a setting use patch_plugin'. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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