wordpress_get_failed_logins

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 tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or details about the output format. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear for a security-related tool.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function and context, 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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a security monitoring tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, access requirements, or error handling, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps in completeness.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('failed login attempts') with a purpose ('for security monitoring'), making the tool's function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_debug_log' or 'wordpress_get_site_health', which might also relate to security or monitoring, though its specific focus on login attempts is reasonably distinct.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'for security monitoring', which implies a context of use, but it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or prerequisites. No comparison to siblings or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent with limited direction on optimal usage scenarios.

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