wordpress_get_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the source table, but does not describe what happens if the option does not exist, whether the return value is raw or unserialized, or any side effects. For a read tool, this is a moderate gap but still insufficient.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and object, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what it does and the source, but does not mention return behavior for missing options or the data type of the value, which would be helpful for an agent to handle responses correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undefined 'name' parameter. While the tool name and description imply that 'name' is the option name, the description does not explicitly confirm this nor provide details about the expected format (e.g., WordPress option keys like 'siteurl'). It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Get') and the specific resource ('WordPress option value') plus the source table ('wp_options'). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_get_settings or wordpress_update_option, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (when you need a WordPress option value) but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. Given there are many sibling tools (e.g., wordpress_get_settings), it would benefit from clarifying when this tool is preferred over others, but the basic usage is inferable.

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