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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool checks and returns statuses, and the non-destructive nature is implied by 'Check' and 'Returns'. It also discloses what is checked (specific files and status types), adding useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by specific output details. No filler words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns, including status values (active/missing/modified/deleted) and the specific files checked. No critical information is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the scope of the check (all deployments, specific files like llms.txt and robots.txt), which enriches the tool's semantics beyond the empty input schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Check the health') and resource ('all deployments on your connected WordPress site'), and specifies the exact outputs (post-level schema status and file-level checks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_schema or generate_schema.

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?

Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate (checking deployment health) and implies it is a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct from siblings.

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