Count content

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the required capability ('Needs manage_options'), multisite scoping (current site), and meaningful counting exclusions (scheduled posts not counted, private files not counted). These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the enumeration, then the permission/exclusion caveats and sibling routing. It is dense — a long single sentence with heavy parentheticals — but every clause carries information; minor tightening would help readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by specifying the counted categories and their status breakdowns, including what is excluded. Combined with permission and scope notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description explicitly confirms 'takes no arguments,' which matches the empty schema. No additional meaning is needed or possible.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get content counts of this site') and enumerates exactly what is counted: post statuses per post type, users total/per role, comment statuses, and media. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the list tools by noting 'The entries themselves are listed by wp_list_posts, wp_list_comments and wp_list_media.'

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 closing sentence routes the agent to the sibling tools when actual entries are needed, which is clear alternative guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need an overview/dashboard summary' statement, so the positive selection criterion is only implied.

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