mainwp_get_setup_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool retries the connection if credentials exist but the Dashboard is unreachable, which is not evident from annotations or schema.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, and retry behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains compact without wasted words.

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 is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the essential context: what it reports, when to call it, and the retry behavior. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Report') and names the resource (MainWP server connection to Dashboard), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool mainwp_configure. It also clarifies the dual purpose: reporting connection status and returning setup instructions.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first when MainWP tools are missing,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also notes the retry behavior when credentials exist but the Dashboard is unreachable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling mainwp_configure, leaving some ambiguity about when to use the configure tool instead.

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