list_wordpress_installations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation (via 'List') and adds the meaningful constraint of requiring specific server components. It does not explain output format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter list tool, this is a minor omission.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List all WordPress installations managed by cPanel') and adds one necessary qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it lists, the scope, and an important prerequisite. It does not specify the return format or error conditions, but those are less critical for a straightforward list operation. The requirement note adds valuable operational context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter details because there are none to document. Schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is no missing schema information to compensate for.

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's function: listing all WordPress installations managed by cPanel. It uses a specific verb+resource combination and the 'WordPress installations' scope distinguishes it from other list tools like list_domains or list_files. The added prerequisite (WP Toolkit or Instance Manager) further clarifies what it operates on.

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 states a clear prerequisite: WP Toolkit or Instance Manager must be on the server. This implicitly guides when the tool is appropriate. It does not discuss alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among sibling tools, so this is sufficient context for selection.

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