wordpress_get_performance_metrics

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what specific metrics are included (e.g., load times, memory usage), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero 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: 'Get WordPress performance metrics and resource usage.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (simple complexity) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on what metrics are returned or the format of the output. Without annotations to cover behavioral aspects, it should ideally specify more about the return values or usage context to be fully complete for an agent.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 WordPress performance metrics and resource usage' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (WordPress performance metrics and resource usage), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_site_health' or 'wordpress_get_system_info' that might overlap in monitoring functionality, preventing 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. With siblings like 'wordpress_get_site_health' and 'wordpress_get_system_info' that could provide related system information, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred, leaving usage context implied at best.

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