wp_get_option

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses that the operation is read-only, explains how to interpret falsy values, and notes response values are returned as stored. It does not explicitly describe error behavior or the full response shape, but the key behavioral caveats are covered.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then provides important caveats, and ends with prerequisites. Every sentence adds value and no unnecessary detail is included.

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 description covers the essential usage context, including the existence check, serialization behavior, and access prerequisites. It does not describe the output schema or error cases, but for a simple read operation the guidance is largely sufficient.

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 `name` parameter is clearly implied as the exact option name, but the required `install` parameter is never explained. With no schema descriptions or enums, this leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 reads one wp_options row by exact name and explicitly notes it works for non-autoloaded options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_list_options, wp_set_option, and wp_delete_option.

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?

It provides concrete guidance: check the `exists` field rather than the value, be aware that serialized values may come back as strings, and that administrator credentials and a specific transport/plugin version are required. This is actionable and specific.

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