get_publish_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Check' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe what the status output looks like or any error conditions. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that fully captures the essence of the tool without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks key context: it does not mention what the publish status represents (e.g., draft, published, pending), nor how it relates to the sibling get_wordpress_status. Given the absence of an output schema, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about the return value.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for article_id ('Article ID'), and the tool description reinforces this with 'for an article'. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so the 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 'Check WordPress publish status for an article' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and the scope 'for an article' distinguishes it from potentially broader tools like get_wordpress_status. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling tool to differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wordpress_status or get_article. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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