Check site health

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/local, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it requires the manage_options capability, takes no arguments, performs no remote request, and does not run the wp-admin Site Health tests. It also clarifies that update counts come from WordPress' last update check rather than a live refresh, which prevents misreading stale numbers as current.

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 summary statement, then coverage, then requirements, then sibling routing — a sensible order. The field enumeration is long and comma-chained, but every listed field is real return-value information the agent would otherwise lack since there is no output schema, so it mostly 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return content and does so field by field, plus capability requirements, absence of remote calls, and the semantics of the update counts. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke this tool correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate beyond the schema's empty object. The description confirms "takes no arguments", matching the schema exactly; that is the full extent of useful parameter information here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Get a short health summary") and then enumerates exactly what is included: PHP version and 7.4+ check, WordPress version, HTTPS, WP_DEBUG, memory limit, object cache, multisite, DISALLOW_FILE_MODS, and pending update counts. It explicitly separates itself from wp_get_update_status and wp_site_info, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a 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?

States the selecting condition (a short overview health summary), the prerequisite (needs manage_options), and routes to alternatives for deeper data: wp_get_update_status names the pending updates, wp_site_info lists versions, theme and plugins. It also rules out confusion with wp-admin's Site Health tests, which is a real alternative an agent might assume.

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