panelica_wordpress_get_v1_wordpress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description appropriately repeats 'Read-only' without contradiction. It adds the required scopes 'domains:read', which is useful auth context, and the HTTP method. It does not disclose response format or pagination, though with strong annotations the safety profile is already clear.

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 compact and front-loads the core action 'List wordpress' before adding HTTP method, category, scopes, and read-only status. Each line adds some operational detail with no filler, though the title-like first line could have been slightly more descriptive.

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, read-only list operation, the description provides the endpoint, method, scopes, and safety profile, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but the intended behavior is straightforward and the sibling context does not introduce ambiguity.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing the description needs to explain. Per the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 and resource: 'List wordpress' with HTTP GET /v1/wordpress. It is differentiated from the only WordPress sibling, panelica_wordpress_get_v1_wordpress_id_backups, by referring to the base wordpress collection rather than per-installation backups. However, it does not specify what is listed (e.g., WordPress installations) beyond the resource name.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a list of WordPress resources is needed, given the 'List wordpress' phrase and GET method. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but there is no competing 'list wordpress' sibling that would require routing guidance.

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