Bridge status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining that the returned flags gate PHP, shell, DB writes and file writes — but it says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or how frequently the flags change, so it is incremental rather than rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists its outputs with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries content, with only minor readability cost from packing three categories into one line.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does enumerate the return contents (version, environment, flags). The remaining gap is routing: it never positions itself against wp_bridge_flags or wp_site_info, which an agent may reach for instead.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify and no ambiguity to resolve.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is returned: plugin version, WP/PHP/theme/plugins environment, and the safety flags gating PHP, shell, DB and file writes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the overlapping siblings wp_bridge_flags and wp_site_info, which cover adjacent territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than wp_site_info, wp_health_check or wp_bridge_flags, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the broader environment/flag snapshot from the description's contents alone.

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