Analysiere Plugin-Impact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core behavior (showing active plugins with potential performance impact) and hints that the impact is an estimate via 'potentiellen', but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how impact is calculated, or what the output format looks like. This is minimal beyond the bare function.

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, directly front-loaded sentence that states the action and the result. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool is simple and the description adequately outlines the output (a list of active plugins with their potential performance impact). Since no output schema exists, the description serves that role well. It could be slightly more detailed about what 'performance impact' means empirically, but it is sufficient for a straightforward analysis 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no inputs for the description to explain. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 with the verb 'Zeigt' (shows) and specifies the resource (active plugins) and the scope (their potential performance impact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like perf_analyze_content and perf_check_images by focusing on plugin-level impact.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it—when an overview of active plugins and their performance impact is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as wp_list_plugins or perf_analyze_content, nor does it provide any when-not guidance. The usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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