wordpress_get_comments

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 'Get comments' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination or sorting, or what the output format looks like. The mention of filtering adds some context, but key behavioral traits like safety, rate limits, or error handling are missing.

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 purpose ('Get comments') and adds filtering details without unnecessary words. It earns its place by being direct and to the point, with zero waste.

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 retrieval operation with filtering), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation (0% coverage with description mismatch), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like return values, error conditions, or how filtering parameters interact, making it inadequate for effective agent use.

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 1 parameter ('perPage') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'perPage' or explain its purpose. It only refers to filtering by 'post and status', which are not documented in the schema, creating a mismatch. This leaves the parameter undocumented and adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 comments') and specifies filtering capabilities ('with filtering by post and status'), which distinguishes it from generic comment retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_post' or 'wordpress_search_posts' that might also involve comment-related operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 mentions filtering by post and status, which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'wordpress_get_post' for post details or 'wordpress_search_posts' for broader searches). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives stated.

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