Show Memcached object cache status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral nuance beyond confirming this is a show/status operation and that the identifier is a path value; no side effects or return details are disclosed, but none are needed given the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the operation, and every sentence serves a purpose: state what it does and how to obtain the required identifier. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering behavior, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource and tells where to get the required software ID. The only notable gap is the under-explained `username` parameter and the absence of any output/status value details.

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 description adds value by explaining that `software` is a path identifier and pointing to the installations list endpoint for its value. However, it does not clarify the `username` parameter beyond the schema's minimal 'username parameter' text.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('Memcached object cache status') and target ('specified WordPress installation'). This distinguishes it from related toggle and other status tools without ambiguity.

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?

It clearly tells the agent to supply the WordPress installation identifier and where to obtain it (GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations, `id` field). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as hosting_toggleMemcachedObjectCacheV1, but the read-only 'Show' framing makes the intended context clear.

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