WordPress Option abrufen

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Ruft ab' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior, return behavior for missing options, or any access requirements. This is a simple getter, so the gap is moderate but present.

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, well-formed sentence that directly states the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it names the table and the retrieval action. However, it could be more complete by stating what is returned (e.g., the option value or null if not found), but the simplicity of the tool mitigates this omission.

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 schema provides a description for 'option' with 100% coverage, but the description adds concrete examples ('blogname, admin_email, etc.'), which clarify the expected format and typical values. This goes beyond the schema, adding practical semantic value for the agent.

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 specific action ('Ruft eine einzelne WordPress Option ... ab' = retrieves a single WordPress option) and the resource ('aus der wp_options Tabelle'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like admin_list_settings (list) and admin_update_option (update). The scope is precise and 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 implies use when needing a single option value, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like admin_get_settings or admin_list_settings. There is no exclusion guidance for scenarios such as fetching multiple options or checking for existence, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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