wp_request

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

There are no annotations to carry any burden, and the description provides essentially zero behavioral disclosure. It's an alias to another tool, so the behavior is that of site.request.v1, but the description doesn't disclose what that behavior entails — no mention of mutating operations, approval requirements, or the dry_run/require_approval semantics. For a tool with no annotations, the description shoulders the full burden and fails to convey any behavioral characteristics.

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 extremely brief ('DEPRECATED alias for site.request.v1.'), which is structurally minimal and front-loaded. However, this brevity crosses the line from conciseness into under-specification—there's nothing beyond the deprecation note, and the sentence earns only partial credit for efficiently communicating the deprecation status.

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 generic HTTP request tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and a low-coverage schema, the description provides almost no contextual value. The output schema exists but the description doesn't contextualize what the tool returns or how it behaves. The deprecation note is the only useful context, which addresses the 'use site.request.v1 instead' decision but leaves the rest uncovered.

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 description coverage is low (20%), and the description adds no parameter-level information whatsoever. Parameters like dry_run, require_approval, body, method, and path are only documented via the single 'path' description in the schema. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving 80% of parameter semantics to the agent's inference.

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 says it's a 'DEPRECATED alias for site.request.v1.' This provides the essential purpose (it's a deprecated alias pointing to site.request.v1), which is clear about what it does. However, it doesn't state the underlying action (making HTTP requests to the WordPress REST API) beyond the deprecation note, so an agent unfamiliar with site.request.v1 wouldn't know its purpose from this description alone. It identifies the relationship to a sibling but doesn't define the tool's function.

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 explicitly says 'DEPRECATED,' which implies it should NOT be used in favor of site.request.v1, providing a clear exclusion. However, it doesn't explain when one might still use this alias, whether site.request.v1 is a drop-in replacement, or any migration guidance. The deprecation note gives minimal 'use the sibling instead' guidance but nothing more.

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