WP Update Radar

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the exact decision logic, the meaning of each verdict including nuanced cases like 'too-new' and 'insufficient-data', and the error behavior for out-of-scope plugins. It also clarifies that this reports community reports rather than security findings. While annotations already mark the tool as non-destructive and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral context about data sources and interpretation.

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 long but every sentence contributes necessary information: the core question, the five verdicts, when to use it, what it is not, scope exclusions, and error behavior. The verdict list is front-loaded and logically ordered. It could be slightly tighter, but the density is justified given the tool's nuance.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description still covers all essential operational context: when to use, what data is considered, how to interpret the five results, what is out of scope, and what happens for unsupported plugins. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result meaningfully.

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 already documents both parameters with clear examples and types, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the version must be 'exact' and the plugin must be a wordpress.org slug, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a concrete question: 'is it safe to update this WordPress plugin to this version right now?' and specifies the resource (a WordPress plugin release) and action (counts support-forum threads and returns one of five verdicts). It fully distinguishes itself from the sibling by framing this as a single-release check and even noting when an error is returned for out-of-coverage plugins.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is present: 'Use it before applying a plugin update, or when someone asks whether a specific version broke anything.' It also gives clear exclusions: it is not a security advisory or CVE lookup, applies only to wordpress.org plugins, excludes premium/paid plugins and themes, and only covers the most-installed plugins. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Even though annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description adds critical context: per-item independence on errors, the meaning of insufficient-data, count of verdicts, and explicit disclaimers about not being a security advisory or CVE lookup. This directly shapes correct interpretation of results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries a distinct operational fact—verdicts, cost, partial failures, limits, semantics, exclusions—and the most decision-relevant question is front-loaded. No filler or repeated schema content.

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?

Given the output schema and detailed annotations, the description covers all necessary context: when to choose it, what it returns conceptually, how it handles edge cases, and what it is not. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavior around the single plugins parameter: errors are isolated per plugin, over-limit input is reported rather than truncated, and each entry needs the exact version in use. This goes beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 opens with a precise question ('which of this site's plugin updates are risky right now?') and explicitly contrasts with the single check, stating the batching advantage. The resource (many plugins vs one) and verb (check/answer risk) are unmistakable.

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?

It tells the agent to prefer this tool whenever more than one plugin must be evaluated, and explains why (one call instead of one call each). It also defines the scope (wordpress.org plugins only, themes/premium out of scope) and the 25-plugin limit with its behavior.

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