wordpress_get_site_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely says 'get' without indicating any side effects, prerequisites, or what exactly is returned (e.g., list of checks, pass/fail status). The agent has no information about mutability or safety.

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 extremely concise at 5 words and one sentence. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and noun, leaving no room for waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool, the description is minimally complete. However, given the large set of sibling tools, it lacks context about what specific health checks are performed and how the output might be used. An output schema would help, but none is provided.

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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning because none exist. This is a baseline score; the description is adequate but adds no extra value beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 resource ('WordPress site health and status checks'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like wordpress_get_site_info or wordpress_get_system_info, which also retrieve site-related information.

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 does not mention scenarios where site health checks are appropriate or when another tool would be better, such as for system info or active plugins.

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