Get WordPress Site Info

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it explains the tool combines public /wp-json with admin-only /wp/v2/settings, and notes that settings fields are omitted gracefully without manage_options capability. This enriches the agent's understanding of auth-dependent behavior and output variability, going beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, then sections for args and returns. The return shape is detailed (necessary because no output schema exists), and the text avoids waste while remaining informative. Slightly verbose due to the full JSON shape, but justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the WPSiteInfo return shape. It also covers auth caveats and graceful degradation for missing settings fields. Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param), the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 single parameter (response_format) is fully described in the schema (enum, default, and explanation). The description's 'Args' section merely restates the schema without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies per schema coverage of 100%.

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: 'Get high-level info about the WordPress site' and enumerates specific data points (name, tagline, admin email, REST API namespaces, supported authentication, general WP settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_get_settings or wc_get_settings, providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 gives clear context on what the tool is for ('high-level info about the WordPress site') but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or list exclusions. It implicitly differentiates from other 'get' tools by focusing on site-wide metadata, which is adequate for this simple read-only tool.

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