LiteSpeed Cache Status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but no details are given about side effects (likely none), the meaning of 'status', or whether it works for all hosting accounts. It adds no context beyond the tool's one-line purpose.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. While this is structurally efficient, it could arguably be too sparse, missing useful context. Still, for a simple status tool, it is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what 'status' returns (e.g., enabled/disabled, version, cache hit rate). It doesn't. Sibling tools with similar status functions (e.g., wp_memcached_status) likely provide more detail. Given the low complexity, only a bit more information is needed, but it's absent.

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 covers both parameters (username, software) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra context is provided to clarify the parameters or their relationship to the status query.

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 'Show LiteSpeed Cache status.' uses a clear verb ('show') and specific resource ('LiteSpeed Cache status'), making the tool's core function obvious. It distinguishes itself from purge/clear cache tools in the sibling list (e.g., wp_litespeed_purge, hosting_cache_clear) by being a read-only status query. However, it doesn't elaborate on what aspects of status are covered, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the status-check counterpart to purging or that it pairs with other wp_*_status tools. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description, not explicit.

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