List WordPress Plugins

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it requires the activate_plugins capability, returns 403 otherwise, and clarifies that active plugins are flagged with status='active'. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 well-organized with sections for purpose, auth note, args, and returns. It is thorough without being overly verbose, though the return shape listing could be considered slightly detailed for such a simple 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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by specifying the exact return object shape. It also covers auth requirements, parameter defaults, and error behavior (403), making it highly complete for a list tool of this complexity.

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 already fully describes all three parameters with types, enums, defaults, and descriptions. The description essentially repeats the schema, adding no new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists installed plugins with version, status, and metadata, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling write/update tools by emphasizing the read-only nature and the status flag.

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 provides some usage context via the admin capability requirement and default response format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wp_get_* or wp_update_plugin. The guidance is mostly implicit.

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