wordpress_list_cron_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of cron jobs list) or behavioral context, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively. However, for a simple read tool, it meets basic needs without being comprehensive.

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 documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, and it implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 scheduled WordPress cron jobs' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('scheduled WordPress cron jobs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_cron_schedules' or 'wordpress_run_cron', which could cause confusion about scope or action.

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, such as 'wordpress_get_cron_schedules' (which might list cron schedule types) or 'wordpress_run_cron' (which might execute cron jobs). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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