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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive context: no paging, what the 'active' field means for multisite network-activated plugins, capability requirement, and that AlphaBridge Connect forwards to the single reachable site. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 core action and scope; each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact (sibling routing, return fields, multisite caveat, exclusions, capability, connection scope) with no filler.

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, the description compensates by specifying the shape of each returned entry and the identifier format. Combined with permission, multisite, and exclusion notes, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description usefully enumerates return entry fields (file, name, version, active) and gives an identifier example, but that is return-value information rather than parameter semantics.

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 the installed plugins in wp-content/plugins") plus the cardinality guarantee ("all in one answer"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wp_list_plugin_files, which handles files inside a single 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?

Names the alternative (wp_list_plugin_files) and the condition that selects it, and states exclusions (must-use plugins and drop-ins are not listed) plus the permission requirement (activate_plugins). An agent knows both when to use this and when to look elsewhere.

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