wordpress_get_table_structure

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 'Get database table structure', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires database access permissions, what happens with invalid table names (e.g., errors or empty results), or the format of the output (e.g., JSON, array). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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: 'Get database table structure (columns and types)'. It front-loads the core purpose and uses parentheses to clarify scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (a database query tool with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or output format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'table' implicitly in 'database table structure', but doesn't explain what the 'table' parameter represents (e.g., a string name of an existing WordPress database table) or provide examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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 'database table structure (columns and types)', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_get_table_preview' or 'wordpress_list_tables' by focusing on structural details rather than data preview or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the text.

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_table_preview' or 'wordpress_list_tables'. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid table name from the database, or context for when structural analysis is needed over data retrieval.

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