wp_check_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns version information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm nondestructive behavior or clarify behavior when no update is available (e.g., whether download URL is omitted).

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 description fully explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return values. Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing what is returned. For a simple check tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 full coverage, and the description adds value by noting the 'current_version' parameter is optional for testing purposes, which goes beyond the schema's description. The 'site' parameter is adequately described in the schema.

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 checks for a newer version of mcp-wordpress and specifies the return values (current version, latest version, download URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform different operations like post management or SEO analysis.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, since there are no other version-check tools, the context is understandable. The description could be improved by adding use cases like 'Use to determine if an update is available before upgrading.'

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