wp_list_options

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the limitation that only autoloaded options are listed and emphasizes that a missing name does NOT prove the option does not exist. It also mentions the permission requirement (manage_options), making the behavior fully transparent.

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 somewhat verbose but well-structured, with a clear statement of purpose, a limitation section, and a requirements section. Each sentence adds value, and the use of capitalization (AUTOLOADED, LIMITATION) helps draw attention to key points. It could be slightly more concise but is not overly wordy.

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 is complete for the tool's simplicity. It covers what the tool returns (option names only), what it excludes (non-autoloaded options), how it relates to wp_get_option for missing names, and the necessary runtime and permission context. No critical information about when or how to use this tool is missing.

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 only parameter 'install' is not described in the tool description, and the schema provides no description either. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but does not mention what 'install' refers to (likely a site installation ID). Agents may be uncertain about what value to pass for this parameter.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('the site's AUTOLOADED option names') with explicit detail that only names are returned, not values. It also distinguishes this tool from wp_get_option by noting the absence of non-autoloaded options, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is read-only, limited to autoloaded options, and explicitly points to wp_get_option for non-autoloaded options. It also states the prerequisites (REST transport, wp-ops-connect 1.3.0+, and administrator app password) which tells the agent when and how to invoke it.

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