wordpress_generate_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Generate') but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, a write operation that modifies files or settings, potential side effects (e.g., cache clearing), performance impact, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety profile.

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, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand 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 tool's complexity (a generation action with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file path, success status, or error details), behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is applied as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps, though it could optionally mention the lack of parameters for clarity.

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 'Generate XML sitemap for search engines' clearly states the verb ('Generate') and resource ('XML sitemap'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specific details like scope (e.g., for the entire site or specific content types) or how it differs from potential alternatives, such as other SEO-related tools like 'wordpress_analyze_seo' or 'wordpress_set_seo_meta', which limits differentiation from siblings.

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, prerequisites (e.g., SEO plugins or permissions required), or exclusions. It does not mention related tools like 'wordpress_analyze_seo' or 'wordpress_set_seo_meta', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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