wordpress_check_updates

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it 'checks' for updates, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention whether this contacts external servers (e.g., WordPress.org API), what output format to expect (e.g., list of updates, count, or plain success), or any potential side effects. The description is too sparse to provide adequate behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary elaboration. It is optimally sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the tool is simple, the absence of an output schema means the description should explain what the agent should expect as a result. It does not specify whether the tool returns a list of available updates, a boolean, or a summary. Without this context, the agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related info, which is acceptable since none exist. It does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage because there are no inputs.

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 'check for available updates' and identifies the exact resources: WordPress core, plugins, and themes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_version_info, which focuses on version information, and get_site_health, which is about overall health. The purpose is immediately clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_version_info or get_site_health. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided. The implied usage is for checking update availability, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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