generate_shortcode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates a shortcode implementation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it outputs code, modifies files, requires authentication, handles errors, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a code-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., code snippet, file), potential side effects, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (tag, description, attributes, body). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose as 'Generate WordPress shortcode implementation,' which specifies the action (generate) and resource (WordPress shortcode). It distinguishes from most siblings that focus on blocks, hooks, or validation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from format_for_wpcodebox or format_wpcodebox_snippet, which are related but not identical.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over generate_gutenberg_block or other code-generation tools in the sibling list.

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