wp_site_health

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

The description uses the verb 'check', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made. There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint) to clarify side effects, and the description does not mention permissions, rate limits, or any potential consequences. The agent is left without explicit assurance of non-destructiveness.

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 concise and free of extraneous information. It conveys the essential purpose and parameter meaning in two short sentences. There is no repetition or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent 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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameter, but it lacks details about the output format or the meaning of the results. For a health check tool, an agent might expect to know what kind of response to anticipate (e.g., status codes, success criteria). Without an output schema, this information is missing, which could leave the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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 description explains the 'install' parameter as the WP Engine install name and provides a concrete example ('daytonplas1stg'). This gives the agent enough context to understand what value to pass. However, it does not elaborate on constraints (e.g., format, allowed characters), which could be inferred from the example but is not explicitly stated.

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: checking the reachability of an install via WP REST and SSH/WP-CLI. It identifies the resource (install) and the method of checking. It could be more specific about what 'reachability' entails, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions that would make this tool preferable to other tools, nor does it indicate when it should not be used. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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