wordpress_execute_sql

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: safety restrictions limiting queries to read-only types (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN), which implies non-destructive operations. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Execute SQL query') and adds a crucial safety note. Every word serves a purpose, with zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 executing SQL queries, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and safety scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error responses, or result formatting. For a tool with potential security and operational implications, more context would be beneficial.

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?

There is 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no details. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the 'query' parameter should contain SQL statements of the allowed types. It doesn't specify syntax, constraints, or examples, offering only basic guidance beyond the schema's structure.

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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('SQL query'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on SQL execution rather than WordPress-specific operations like managing posts or plugins. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential database-related siblings (e.g., 'wordpress_get_table_structure'), though those are distinct in function.

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 clear context on when to use it—for executing SQL queries—and implicitly restricts usage to safe query types (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the safety note guides usage effectively. No explicit comparison to siblings is made, but the scope is well-defined.

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