wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what the search returns (list of plugins? detailed metadata?), whether it accesses external APIs, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably queries an external directory, more context about the operation would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'term' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter (like search syntax, examples, or special characters). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Search') and target resource ('wordpress.org plugin directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'wp_plugin_list' or 'wp_search_replace', but the combination of verb and resource is sufficiently specific for this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related sibling tools (wp_plugin_list, wp_search_replace, wp_plugin_install) where the agent might need clarification about which tool to choose for different search or plugin-related tasks.

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