wordpress_read_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that file contents are read, without mentioning path restrictions, permissions, binary file handling, size limits, or error behavior. This is minimal transparency beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools for specific file types (themes, plugins), the description is too sparse. It leaves out return format, path format, and relationship to specialized readers, making it difficult for an agent to confidently select it over alternatives.

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 schema has one 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description only loosely mentions themes/plugins. It does not clarify whether the path is relative/absolute, whether a leading slash is needed, or what file types are accessible. The description adds some context but fails to fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a clear action ('Read file contents') with a specific resource scope ('from WordPress (themes, plugins, etc.)'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the more specialized wordpress_read_theme_file and wordpress_read_plugin_file siblings.

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 the specialized theme/plugin readers or when not to use it. The description only implies general file reading, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from sibling names.

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