TranslatePress Einstellungen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description merely restates the tool name ('Ruft TranslatePress Konfiguration ab') without adding any behavioral details like read-only nature, error handling, or return format. It offers no information beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, providing no additional context beyond the tool's name.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the returned configuration looks like or mention any requirements. It does neither. While the tool is simple, an agent cannot infer the response structure or whether preliminary conditions (e.g., plugin installation) exist, leaving the description incomplete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers all parameters (trivially). The description adds no extra semantics, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there is nothing to explain. The description is adequate in this dimension.

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 purpose: retrieving TranslatePress configuration. It uses a specific verb ('Ruft ab' = retrieves) and a specific resource (TranslatePress configuration), distinguishing it from sibling tools for WPML, Polylang, and other plugins.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether TranslatePress must be active, or any context that would help an agent decide between this and similar tools like wpml_get_post_translations or polylang_list_languages.

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