wp_get_option

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core operation (get by key) and provides examples; it does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the key is missing, how missing vs. false values are represented, or whether any authentication or capability is required.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose precisely, and the second offers useful examples. There is no filler or repetition, making it compact and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and one-parameter, so the description is largely sufficient for basic invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not cover behavior for missing or unset options, which matters because get_option can return false for a missing key; an agent could misinterpret that as a stored false value.

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 already documents the single 'key' parameter at 100% coverage with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by expanding the set of common option keys (blogname, date_format, posts_per_page, etc.), which helps an agent choose realistic, valid 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('single WordPress option value'), and the access method ('by key'). The word 'single' also helps distinguish it from the sibling wp_get_options_batch, so an agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving one option at a time, and the listed common options give practical context. However, it never explicitly says 'use wp_get_options_batch for multiple options' or 'use wp_set_options to modify values', so the agent must infer alternatives from sibling names.

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