Check if WordPress installations are valid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by explaining what the tool checks (missing files, plugins, themes) and that it can detect broken installations. This goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, with no filler. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then details what issues are detected, and finally explains how to provide the required parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure is clear.

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 read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, input requirements, and source of identifiers. It does not describe the return format or any limits (e.g., batch size), but given the simplicity and clear annotations, what is missing is minor and unlikely to hinder correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value for the software_ids parameter by telling the agent where to obtain the identifiers (GET endpoint, id field), which is not in the schema. It does not add extra meaning for force or username, but the additional context for the key parameter warrants a score above baseline.

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 whether WordPress installations are valid and working correctly, and even lists the types of issues detected (missing files, broken plugins, themes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing, installing, or deleting installations. The verb and resource are explicit and specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for validation checks but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It does provide guidance on how to obtain the identifiers, which is helpful, but the when-to-use context is only implied.

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