wordpress_list_backups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all available backups' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how backups are returned (e.g., list format, metadata), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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: 'Get all available backups'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a simple list operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough depth for optimal agent decision-making, especially without annotations.

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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 all available backups' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('backups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_backup_database', 'wordpress_backup_files', and 'wordpress_delete_backup' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what 'available' means (e.g., local vs remote, status), keeping it from 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., backups must exist), compare to other backup-related tools like 'wordpress_restore_backup' or 'wordpress_schedule_backups', or indicate typical use cases (e.g., before deletion or restoration). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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