wordpress_wc_is_active

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 the tool checks installation and activation status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what the output looks like (e.g., boolean, detailed status), potential errors (e.g., if WooCommerce isn't installed), or any side effects. For a tool 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, clear sentence: 'Check if WooCommerce is installed and active.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being checked.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral context. For a status-check tool, this is a basic but functional description, though it could be more informative to fully guide an agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 purpose: 'Check if WooCommerce is installed and active.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('WooCommerce'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_plugin_exists' or 'wordpress_get_plugin_status', which could also relate to plugin status checks, though those are more general.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to siblings like 'wordpress_plugin_exists' (which checks any plugin) or 'wordpress_get_plugin_status' (which might provide more detailed status). This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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