generate_wordpress_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'production-ready code, tests, and documentation' and hints at iterative use, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only or write operation, potential side effects (e.g., file creation), performance considerations, or error handling. For a complex tool with 20 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 structured into clear sections (main description, WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) and is relatively concise at four short lines. However, 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions' is somewhat vague and could be more directly relevant, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While it provides high-level workflow tips, it doesn't adequately cover the operational context needed for a tool of this scope, especially without annotations to fill in gaps.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'features' or 'prefix' should be formatted. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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's purpose: 'Generate a complete WordPress plugin structure with all necessary files and best practices.' This specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('WordPress plugin structure'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'audit_wordpress_plugin' or 'wordpress_plugin_readiness,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides some usage context with 'WORKFLOW: Ideal for creating production-ready code, tests, and documentation' and 'TIP: Generate unlimited iterations locally, then review with Claude,' which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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