multisite_validate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It lists specific validation checks (network activation, option functions, etc.), giving a reasonable behavioral overview. However, it does not disclose side effects (none expected), required permissions (likely read), or whether the tool is read-only.

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 sentence with a colon-separated list, which is efficient and front-loaded. It could be more scannable with bullet points, but it is not verbose.

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 has no output schema and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., pass/fail, list of errors). For an agent invoking this tool, understanding the result format is crucial. Also missing prerequisites like plugin existence and file permissions.

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 100% with 'Absolute path to the plugin root'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond this, only confirming it's a plugin. Baseline 3 applies since schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 validates plugin Multisite compatibility and lists specific checks, distinguishing it from sibling validation tools like validate_plugin_header. However, it could be more explicit about the resource type (WordPress plugin) and how it differs from other validation tools.

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 when to use (for Multisite compatibility checks), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools. No condition for use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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