wordpress_read_file

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 the tool reads file contents, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as file size limits, supported file types (e.g., text, binary), encoding issues, error handling for non-existent paths, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Read file contents'). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content as text, error messages), parameter details, or behavioral context like limitations. For a read operation, this leaves the agent under-informed about execution and results.

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, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'path' implicitly but doesn't explain the parameter's semantics, such as expected format (e.g., absolute/relative paths, WordPress-specific paths like 'wp-content/plugins/'), examples, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('file contents from WordPress'), specifying the scope includes 'themes, plugins, etc.'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_list_files' (which lists files) and 'wordpress_file_info' (which provides metadata), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'wordpress_read_plugin_file' or 'wordpress_read_theme_file' which are more specific versions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wordpress_read_plugin_file' or 'wordpress_read_theme_file' for specific file types, or 'wordpress_file_info' for metadata instead of content. The description implies usage for reading files in WordPress contexts but lacks context on prerequisites, file path formats, or access permissions.

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