List Base Plugin Runners

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose scope ('available inside WalletChan MCP') and that the operation is a listing. It does not state whether auth/pairing is required or what the returned runner records contain. For a zero-parameter read tool the bar is low, but more behavioral context could be given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object come first. Every word 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only spec, and it does not explain the shape of the result or how the returned runners map to commands in run_base_plugin_cli. Adequate as a one-line summary but thin for a tool whose entire value is the returned inventory.

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 there is nothing for the description to compensate for and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related text is needed or missing.

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 ('List') and resource ('pinned protocol CLI runners and supported commands'), which distinguishes it from the sibling run_base_plugin_cli that executes them. However, 'pinned protocol CLI runners' is internal jargon that is never unpacked, so an agent infers rather than knows exactly what entities are being enumerated.

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 only implied: an agent can guess this is a discovery step preceding run_base_plugin_cli, but the description never says when to call it, what prerequisite it serves, or that it is the lookup before execution. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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