apisix_list_plugin_configs

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

注解已声明 readOnlyHint=true、idempotentHint=true、destructiveHint=false，安全属性清晰。描述补充了'有意不提供 get 工具'这一行为约束，但未披露分页、返回结构等操作细节，在注解基础上增益有限。

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?

描述非常简短，第一句直接点明用途，第二句虽简短但信息有些含糊（'有意不提供 get 工具'）。整体无冗余，但第二句价值有限，且结构上未按重要性排序。

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?

缺少输出 schema，描述未说明返回格式、分页行为、插件配置的具体含义，也未与 list_plugins 等相区分。对于带分页的列表工具，仅靠当前描述和注解不足以让代理完整理解工具边界和调用结果。

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?

输入模式中四个参数均有完整描述，schema_description_coverage=100%，按规则基线为3。描述文本未额外说明参数用法或补充语义，因此不超过基线。

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?

描述明确说明'查询插件配置列表'，动词+资源清晰，但未与同类列表工具（如 list_routes、list_services）区分。第二句'有意不提供 get 工具'虽提供背景，但主要传达的是没有单独获取工具的意图，对用途本身帮助有限。

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?

描述没有说明何时使用此工具或与其他工具的替代关系。仅提到没有 get 工具，暗示此列表是唯一获取方式，但未明确给出使用场景、前提条件或排除条件，缺乏实际指导。

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