check_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a non-destructive read-only operation via 'look up', but it does not disclose data freshness, caching, network dependency, or error behavior. The verb provides some transparency, but more detail would be expected.

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 uses every word effectively. It focuses on the action and resource without any redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned information (security grade, risk level, findings count). It lacks edge-case details like invalid slugs, but it is complete for basic usage.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'slug' with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs a lookup of a plugin's latest security grade, risk level, and findings count from the WP HealthKit directory. The verb 'look up' and specific resources distinguish it from sibling tools like audit_plugin, which imply active auditing.

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 a read-only lookup scenario, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_plugin. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the usage context only implied.

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