wp_site_info

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 makes the retrieval nature clear through 'Get' and lists the types of information returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention output structure, sensitivity of server details, read-only guarantees, or any potential failure behavior.

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 filler. Every phrase adds scope information, and the list of included categories is easy to parse 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?

For a zero-input tool, the description is mostly complete: it lists the main result categories an agent should expect. However, with no output schema, the exact structure of 'server details' and how plugin/theme/version data are represented remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the output scope instead, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('WordPress site information'), and enumerates the included content categories: version, plugins, theme, post types, WooCommerce status, and server details. This clearly conveys what the tool does and subtly distinguishes it from focused siblings like wp_list_plugins or wp_woocommerce_status, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'comprehensive WordPress site information' implies use when a broad overview is needed, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like wp_site_health for health checks or wp_list_plugins for plugin details. It provides implied usage context without exclusions or alternative routing.

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