get_system_status

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that it is read-only. It adds value by specifying the exact categories of information returned, which is not obvious from the name alone. It also avoids contradicting the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists key detail areas without unnecessary words. Every phrase adds useful information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It covers the scope of the returned data and leaves parameter details to the schema. No critical gaps are evident.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'fields' with a clear explanation of comma-separated values and defaults (100% coverage). The description's list of content areas mirrors the default fields, adding minimal new insight. At the baseline for full schema coverage, a score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'WooCommerce system status' and enumerates the exact areas covered (environment, database, plugins, theme, settings, security), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_system_tools (which lists executable tools) and get_settings (which retrieves specific settings).

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?

The description implies usage context by stating what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of related tools like list_system_tools or run_system_tool, leaving the user to infer the distinction from the name.

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