wordpress_plugin_exists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Check'), what permissions are required, how it handles non-existent plugins, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a WordPress system.

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's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status details), error conditions, or system dependencies. Given the complexity of WordPress plugin management, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 but adds no parameter details beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what the 'plugin' parameter expects (e.g., plugin slug, name, or path), acceptable formats, or examples. The baseline is 3 because the single parameter is straightforward, but the lack of schema descriptions means the description fails to add meaningful semantics.

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 'Check if a plugin is installed' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('plugin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_get_plugins' (which lists all plugins) by focusing on existence checking, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 versus alternatives like 'wordpress_get_plugins' or 'wordpress_get_plugin_status'. The description implies usage for checking installation status but offers no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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