wordpress_get_plugin_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get status and details' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific details are returned. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, such as parameter details or expected return values.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'a specific plugin' but does not explain the 'plugin' parameter's semantics, such as format (e.g., plugin slug, name, or ID) or examples. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource 'status and details of a specific plugin', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'wordpress_get_plugins' or 'wordpress_get_plugins_detailed', which might retrieve multiple plugins, so it lacks 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 like 'wordpress_get_plugins' or 'wordpress_plugin_exists'. It implies usage for a single plugin but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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