wordpress_wc_is_active

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states 'check if' without specifying return type, side effects, or error handling. The agent cannot know whether the result is a boolean, a status string, or an object, nor whether any permissions are required.

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 7-word sentence that is direct and easy to parse. It contains no fluff or redundant details, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 lacks any output schema or annotations, so the description should specify the return format, but it doesn't. The description is adequate for understanding the basic purpose, but incomplete for knowing how to interpret the result, leaving a notable gap.

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 defines zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific information. Given the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, this score reflects that there is nothing to clarify.

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 function: checking whether WooCommerce is installed and active. The verb 'check' and resource 'WooCommerce' are specific, and it's distinct from sibling tools by focusing on a conditional status rather than a general plugin query.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_plugin_exists or wordpress_get_plugin_status. The description merely states what it does without any context on prerequisites or comparison to similar tools.

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