mcp_check_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether the check calls a remote WordPress.org API (latency, rate limits), whether it is read-only and safe, or what the result contains. 'Check' implies read-only but nothing more is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, stating verb and scope immediately. It is efficient, though perhaps under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits the expected result shape (which components have updates, version numbers) and the remote-call behavior an agent would want to know before invoking.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema ('Site id (see list_sites)'), so the description need not add parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes no extra parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('WordPress core, plugin, and theme updates'), which is clearly distinguishable from write siblings like mcp_update_core, mcp_update_plugin, and mcp_update_all_plugins. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the check-vs-apply distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives (e.g., that this precedes mcp_update_all_plugins/mcp_update_core). The usage is only implied by the word 'Check'.

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