Ops / Installer Status

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool checks and returns (production flag, DISALLOW_FILE_MODS, install capability, allowed zip hosts). It doesn't document failure states, but the read-only hint eliminates concern about side effects.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second lists returns and gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no padding.

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?

For a simple read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what it verifies, what data it returns, and when to invoke it. Combined with the schema's full coverage of the optional parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter response_format is fully documented in the schema with enum, default, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: checking whether the Ars Nova Ops plugin is active, and lists the exact data it returns (production site status, file modification allowance, user install capability, zip host allowlist). This distinguishes it from related tools like wp_install_plugin and wp_get_site_info.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call before installing/updating plugins', giving a decisive usage guideline. While it doesn't name alternative tools, this precondition makes the intended workflow unambiguous.

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