wordpress_check_user_capability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only check, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid user ID), or the return format (e.g., boolean vs detailed response), leaving significant gaps for a tool with mutation-like implications.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, return values, and error handling, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation despite its conciseness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'user' and 'capability' generally but doesn't explain what 'userId' represents (e.g., numeric ID vs username), valid 'capability' values, or examples, failing to address the undocumented parameters adequately.

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 'Check if user has specific capability' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('user capability'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_capabilities' or 'wordpress_assign_role' that also deal with user capabilities, keeping it at a basic clarity level.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), context (e.g., for permission verification), or related tools like 'wordpress_get_capabilities' for listing capabilities, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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