Elementor status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real content beyond that: it enumerates the exact facts returned (Pro detection, version, flexbox containers), which is valuable for a status probe with no output schema. It stops short of noting caching, cost, or failure behavior.

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 the three reported facts with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a no-argument, read-only status probe with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what it will learn. Only the absence of usage framing against the related wp_el_* and site-info tools leaves a small gap.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema, and there is no parameter information to add.

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?

Clear verb ('Report') plus specific resource (Elementor/Pro activation, version, flexbox container flag). It is readily distinguishable from siblings such as wp_el_get, wp_el_widgets, or the generic wp_site_info/wp_health_check. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 says only what is reported, never when to reach for it. It gives no guidance on using it versus wp_site_info, wp_health_check, or the other wp_el_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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