wordpress_get_site_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires admin permissions, if it's resource-intensive, what format the output returns (e.g., JSON, summary), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. While concise, it lacks completeness for a tool that likely returns complex health data—it doesn't hint at what information is included (e.g., checks, scores, recommendations) or how to interpret results. For a tool with potential behavioral nuances, more context would be helpful.

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, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles the parameter documentation.

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 ('WordPress site health and status checks'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_get_site_info' or 'wordpress_get_system_info' by focusing on health/status checks, though it could be more explicit about what constitutes 'health' (e.g., performance, security, updates).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wordpress_get_site_info' or 'wordpress_get_system_info'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing (e.g., after updates or errors), or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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