validate_plugin_structure

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It lists what is checked but does not state whether tool is read-only, if it modifies files, requires permissions, or how results are returned (e.g., success/failure, list of violations). For a validation tool, behavioral details are essential.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 it is a validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what happens post-validation (e.g., returns errors, logs). It only lists checks but omits behavior on failure/success, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's outcome.

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 has 100% coverage with description for the single parameter 'path' ('Absolute path to the plugin root'). Description adds context ('plugin folder structure') but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes specific verb 'Validate' and resource 'WPZylos plugin folder structure', lists concrete checks (required files, directories, namespace consistency, config setup). Clearly distinguishes from sibling validation tools like validate_plugin_header or detect_framework_violations.

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?

Implies usage when needing to validate plugin folder structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like detect_framework_violations or validate_plugin_header. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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