wordpress_get_site_info

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. It mentions retrieving 'complete WordPress site information' and 'available API routes', but doesn't specify what 'complete' entails, whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 that front-loads the key information ('Get complete WordPress site information') and adds a useful detail ('including available API routes'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or prerequisites. For a read-only tool in a complex environment like WordPress, more context would be helpful, but it meets the minimum viable standard.

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 there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which aligns with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete WordPress site information including available API routes'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_system_info' or 'wordpress_get_version_info', which might also provide site-related information, so it falls short of 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 many sibling tools that retrieve specific types of WordPress data (e.g., 'wordpress_get_system_info', 'wordpress_get_version_info'), the agent is left to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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