wordpress_get_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without clarifying that it is a safe read operation (non-destructive), potential error states (e.g., missing option), or any side effects. This leaves the agent uninformed about operational characteristics.

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 wastes no words. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices completeness. Still, it meets the standard for conciseness given the simple nature of the 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 output schema and annotations, plus the existence of many sibling 'get_*' tools, the description is insufficient. It does not communicate the return format (e.g., raw value, serialized object), error handling, or how it compares to similar tools, leaving the agent with limited context for correct 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 has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning, such as the format of the option name (e.g., serialized vs. plain), valid examples, or relationship to WordPress option naming conventions. The agent must infer entirely from the parameter name.

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 action ('Get'), the object ('WordPress option value'), and the source ('wp_options table'). It is specific enough to differentiate from many other 'get_*' tools, though ambiguity remains with tools like wordpress_get_settings, which might overlap. The single-parameter schema reinforces the singular purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_get_settings or wordpress_get_theme_mods. The description does not specify that it retrieves a single option by name, nor does it suggest alternatives for bulk retrieval or related data.

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