mainwp_costs_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Pro feature and the requirement for the Cost Tracker extension, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, or what happens when no costs exist. The description is minimal but adds some value.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action ('List all tracked costs') and appends essential context in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema means the description should provide some insight into the return format, but it does not. It also does not mention pagination or filtering despite the schema having five optional parameters. The description is too brief for full contextual understanding.

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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states 'List all tracked costs' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mainwp_costs_add, mainwp_costs_delete, mainwp_costs_edit, and mainwp_costs_get. The additional context about Pro feature and Cost Tracker extension further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 usage for listing costs but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like mainwp_costs_get for a single cost. No when-not-to-use or exclusion information is provided.

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