memory_list_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool lists, but does not describe that it reads the memory dump, whether it may be slow, or what constitutes 'available' plugins. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undefined.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. The 'Rust + Vol3' detail adds value and does not bloat the text.

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?

The description is too terse for an agent to fully understand the tool's context. It does not disclose the return format, which is critical since no output schema exists, nor does it explain what 'available' means in relation to the image_path. Sibling tools exist that could confuse selection, and the description offers no differentiation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter image_path ('Path to memory dump file'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available plugins'), clearly stating the tool's function. The parenthetical '(Rust + Vol3)' adds specificity about plugin types, and the action of listing is distinct from running plugins (as seen in the sibling name memory_run_plugin).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for enumeration before running plugins, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like memory_run_plugin or memory_get_status.

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