hosting_getInstallationJWTTokenV1

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JWT for authentication but lacks details on expiration, side effects, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the installation ID is invalid). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences, first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not detail the JWT token format or how to use it. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., user permissions). The guidance on obtaining the installation ID is helpful, but overall completeness is moderate for a token-generation tool.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value for the 'software' parameter by explaining it's the WordPress installation identifier and how to obtain it, but the 'username' parameter only repeats the schema's description. Overall, it provides marginal additional meaning.

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?

Clearly states that the tool returns a JWT token for authenticating against a WordPress installation, specifying the MCP endpoint. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, as no other tool appears to generate authentication tokens.

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?

Provides explicit context on how to use the tool: 'Provide the WordPress installation (software) identifier in the path' and even directs the user to another endpoint to obtain that ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives.

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