wordpress_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata (size, modified date, permissions), which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify error conditions (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), performance considerations, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose ('Get file information') and details the specific metadata returned. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, error handling, and output format (e.g., what the returned information looks like). While concise, it does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage (no descriptions in the schema), the parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. However, since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to add any semantic value, such as explaining what 'path' represents (e.g., relative or absolute path, file types supported). This reduces the score to 3, as it minimally meets expectations but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action ('Get file information') and resource ('file'), specifying the types of information returned (size, modified date, permissions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_read_file' (which likely reads content) or 'wordpress_list_files' (which lists files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'wordpress_scan_permissions' (which might focus only on permissions).

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions needed), nor does it compare to siblings like 'wordpress_list_files' for broader file listings or 'wordpress_read_file' for content access. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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