wordpress_get_taxonomy

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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the taxonomy doesn't exist), rate limits, or what the output includes (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, which is a trade-off for conciseness.

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 complexity (simple read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results. More information is needed to compensate for missing structured data.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'taxonomy' refers to (e.g., a taxonomy slug like 'category' or 'post_tag'), valid values, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 details for a specific taxonomy' clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('taxonomy'), but it's vague about what 'details' entail (e.g., properties, usage, terms) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_taxonomies' (plural) or 'wordpress_get_terms', which might retrieve related data. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving metadata about a taxonomy (like its name, labels, capabilities) versus listing terms within it, or when to choose 'wordpress_get_taxonomies' for multiple taxonomies. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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