Check backup status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: host-level backups are invisible to WordPress and are flagged as unknown, and the tool 'Needs the companion plugin.' It clearly discloses limitations and prerequisites.

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 efficiently structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage timing, a host-level caveat, and a dependency note. Every sentence adds value, and the plugin list is compact and relevant.

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?

For a read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the report scope, warning conditions, operational context, and a known limitation. The only small gap is that 'Needs the companion plugin' is slightly vague, and the exact output shape is not described, but the report semantics are clear enough.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, site_id, with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter detail, but the schema already fully explains the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource: the site's backup plugin and last completed backup. It even enumerates the recognized plugins and the warning behavior, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, none of which cover backup status.

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 says when to run the tool: 'Run this before any risky change — updates, theme publishes, search-replace, bulk deletes.' This is strong situational guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but no backup-status alternative exists among the siblings.

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