wp_audit_best_practices

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 clearly states the output format (checklist with status pass/fail/warning and auto-fixability), and the audit nature implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything'. It is adequately transparent for an audit tool.

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 well-structured, leading with the main purpose and then detailing the checklist categories. It is slightly verbose with the enumerated lists, but every clause adds information about scope and output, so it is not wasteful.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only audit tool without an output schema, the description is quite complete: it specifies what is checked, the status values, and the auto-fix indicator. It does not cover potential error conditions or performance expectations, but those are not critical for this type of tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema has 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description need not add parameter details, and it does not attempt to. This is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Audit') and a clear resource ('WordPress site'), then enumerates the exact categories and checks (security, SEO, performance, maintenance, theme), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like wp_site_health or wp_fix_best_practices.

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 clearly implies its use for auditing best practices, but it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. wp_site_health or wp_fix_best_practices). The name itself is a strong hint, but explicit routing is missing.

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