wordpress_get_table_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what it returns (columns and types). It does not mention whether the operation is read-only/safe, if any permissions are required, or how it behaves with missing or invalid tables, which is insufficient for an agent to assess side effects.

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 states the verb, resource, and output scope in a compact, easy-to-scan format, making it appropriately concise for a simple introspection 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 an output schema and annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the shape of the returned data (e.g., array of column objects with keys), possible error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader set of database-related tools. This leaves a significant gap for the agent to invoke and interpret it 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?

The parameter 'table' has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on accepted values (e.g., table name format, case sensitivity, whether a qualified name is needed). The description relies on the parameter's self-explanatory name, but fails to compensate for the absence of schema-level details.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('database table structure') with explicit output scope ('columns and types'). This distinguishes it from siblings like wordpress_list_tables (which lists table names) and wordpress_get_table_preview (which retrieves row data), as it focuses on schema metadata.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and one-line description.

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