wordpress_get_table_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. For a database introspection tool, mentioning that it is non-destructive would be valuable, but no such info is given.

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 concise: one sentence, no fluff. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is well-structured but under-specified, which is not ideal for conciseness credit.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description could be sufficient if it gave more context about what the output includes (e.g., column data types, nullable, keys). It does not mention that the result might include indexes, defaults, or other schema details. With many sibling tools, more contextual info is needed to avoid confusion.

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 one required parameter 'table' with no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description does not add any meaning—it does not clarify what format the table name should be in, whether it includes the WordPress prefix, or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the bare 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 tool retrieves database table structure (columns and types). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('database table structure'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'get_table_preview'.

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 compared to alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'list_tables' is for getting all table names, or that 'get_table_preview' shows sample data. The description lacks context for appropriate use.

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