wordpress_check_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Check for available updates') but doesn't add any behavioral context, such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output might look like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (a check operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It only states what the tool does without providing any behavioral context, usage guidelines, or information about the return values, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively in a broader context.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. This earns a baseline score of 4 because the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, and it aligns with the schema's lack of parameters.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resources ('WordPress, plugin, and theme updates'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_version_info' or 'wordpress_get_plugins_detailed', which might provide overlapping information about updates or versions, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools that could relate to updates or version checking, such as 'wordpress_get_version_info' or 'wordpress_get_plugins', but the description doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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