Check WordPress Validity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Check' but does not disclose what checks are performed, what happens if installations are invalid, or any return/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool without 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, compact sentence—'Check if WordPress installations are valid/intact.' It front-loads the action and resource with no unnecessary words. While extremely terse, it earns a high score for conciseness, though not perfect because it omits useful structure like optional examples.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and what constitutes 'valid/intact.' It only states the tool's purpose without describing result interpretation, edge cases, or when such a check is needed. For a simple one-parameter tool, this incompleteness leaves the agent guessing.

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 sole parameter 'username' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description, providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already handles it adequately, so a 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 clearly states the tool checks WordPress installations for validity/integrity, distinguishing it from siblings like wp_list_updates or wp_get_version. The term 'valid/intact' is somewhat vague but conveys a health-check purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like wp_detect_installations or wp_installations_list, nor does it provide any context for choosing this validation check.

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