wordpress_get_cron_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns structured data, has rate limits, or affects system state. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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: 'Get available cron schedule intervals.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about return format, permissions, or typical usage. For a read-only tool with no complex inputs, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on what to expect from the output.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing missing—the description correctly doesn't discuss nonexistent parameters.

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 'Get available cron schedule intervals' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('available cron schedule intervals'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_list_cron_jobs' (which lists scheduled jobs) by focusing on interval definitions rather than job listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases (e.g., before scheduling events), or how it differs from related tools like 'wordpress_schedule_event' or 'wordpress_list_cron_jobs'. Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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