wordpress_get_robots_txt

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

The description only states it retrieves the file content, with no details on error handling (e.g., if the file does not exist), permissions required, or the format of the returned content. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but falls short.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete for basic usage. However, it lacks context about the return format (expected plain text), error states, and potential side effects (e.g., reading a file that may be dynamically generated).

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying that the tool gets the robots.txt file content, but this is obvious from the name. Without parameters, the description does not need to explain them, so baseline is adequate.

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') and the resource ('robots.txt file content'). It is specific and directly matches the tool's name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_read_file' that could also read arbitrary files, though the tool name itself provides context.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'wordpress_read_file' or 'wordpress_get_option'. There is no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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