wp_extract_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'read-only, no writes', which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the prerequisite of a profile via wp_discover_site, adding transparency about required setup. No contradictory annotations exist, so no false claims.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that pack essential information: purpose, read-only nature, return structure, and a prerequisite. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the return value structure in detail (builder, roundtrip_ok, tree with node attributes) and mentions the prerequisite profile. It does not discuss error cases or edge conditions, but given the simplicity of a parse operation and the read-only declaration, the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Slightly more detail on parameter semantics would improve completeness.

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 provides no descriptions for the two required parameters, install and post_id. The description does not explain 'install' at all, leaving ambiguity about what it refers to (likely a WordPress installation identifier). 'post_id' is somewhat self-explanatory but still lacks explicit context. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but only partially does so.

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 tool's purpose: 'Parse one page into an editable element tree'. It identifies the specific verb 'Parse' and resource 'one page', and distinguishes it by emphasizing the 'editable element tree' structure and 'read-only' nature, which sets it apart from content-fetching or editing tools.

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 provides usage context by noting it is 'read-only, no writes' and that it 'Requires a profile (wp_discover_site)'. While it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like wp_get_content or wp_edit_page, the focus on an 'editable element tree' implies its use case for structure-aware inspection before editing. This is sufficient guidance but not exhaustive.

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