wp_list_plugins

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

The description declares the tool is read-only and explicitly lists what operations it does not perform (install/update/delete). It also mentions the REST transport prerequisite. However, it does not discuss potential error conditions, pagination, or output size, which would provide fuller transparency.

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 brief and mostly front-loaded, but the sentence 'Counts come back as `active` / `inactive`' is confusing—likely a typo for 'Status'—and detracts from clarity. The rest is straightforward, but this error lowers the score.

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 output schema, the description must fully describe the return shape; it lists fields but not the structure (array/object). More critically, the required 'install' parameter is completely unexplained, making it impossible for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly. The description covers purpose and usage but fails on parameter and response details.

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 input schema defines one required parameter named 'install' but the description provides no explanation of its meaning or format. The parameter name is ambiguous (could be a path, slug, or something else) and there is zero schema description coverage, leaving the agent without any guidance.

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 that the tool lists all installed plugins with fields (id, name, status, version, requirements). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting that it is read-only, that the returned plugin id feeds the activation tools, and that install/update/delete are not offered here.

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 explicitly tells the agent to start here before toggling plugins, explains how the returned `status` field indicates whether a toggle is needed, and directs install/update/delete actions to the separate plugin-audit/MainWP process. The transport requirement (REST) is also stated.

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