WordPress: Wp db check

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses concrete operational facts a caller needs: the companion plugin dependency with a minimum version (v2.18.5+), the manage_options capability requirement, the exact SQL operation performed, and the prefix scoping. It stops short of noting runtime implications such as CHECK TABLE's potential locking/IO cost on large tables.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the exact operation and return shape, then hard preconditions. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

Preconditions and the nature of the return payload (per-table status rows) are covered, which is good given there is no output schema. However, the undefined `site` parameter and the absence of any guidance on interpreting or acting on the returned status leave a meaningful gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 single required parameter `site` has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its expected format (site ID, slug, or URL) and whether it selects among multiple WordPress installs is left entirely undefined. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Check WordPress database tables") and narrows scope precisely: it runs ``CHECK TABLE`` only on tables with the current WordPress table prefix and returns per-table status rows. That distinguishes it from siblings like wp_db_optimize or wp_db_tables by implication (check vs. optimize vs. list), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is for verifying table integrity/corruption status — and the prefix and permission preconditions are stated. There is no explicit when-to-use versus wp_db_optimize/wp_db_tables/wp_db_size guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no note about cost or locking on large tables.

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