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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses real operational constraints: administrators only (manage_options and edit_plugins), not available on multisite, blocked by DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT and DISALLOW_FILE_MODS, and that calls are forwarded via AlphaBridge Connect to a single site. It also explains where snippets actually live (the plugin, not AlphaBridge), which shapes expectations about returned data.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned field list, then constraints, then the get_php_snippet pointer. Dense rather than padded, though the sentence about AlphaBridge keeping no snippets of its own is context rather than invocation guidance and could be trimmed.

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 compensates by enumerating return fields, and it covers auth, environment restrictions, and the fallback when no snippet plugin is active. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are enums with descriptions, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'Only PHP snippets unless type is all' and the provider default restate what the schema says rather than adding new meaning such as ordering or filtering interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (list snippets) and enumerates exactly which fields come back (provider, id, name, type, location, active, trashed, priority, sha256, last error). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wp_get_php_snippet, which returns the code itself.

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?

Clear routing: use this to enumerate snippets, use wp_get_php_snippet for the code, and the type/provider filters are explained. It also covers the degenerate case (neither plugin active) with a pointer to how to get one. It does not spell out exclusions like 'do not use this to check whether a snippet exists before deleting', but the context is clear.

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