wordpress_advanced_error_log

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'recent' (temporal scope) and 'Admin scope' (auth requirements). However, fails to disclose whether this is read-only vs destructive, output format, log size limits, or if accessing logs affects file locks. 'Get' implies read-only but doesn't confirm non-destructive nature.

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?

Three sentences total, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient length though '[UNIFIED]' tag adds noise without value. 'Useful for debugging issues' is slightly redundant (implied by error logs) but the security note earns its place.

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?

Given 4 undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It establishes what the tool retrieves but omits critical parameter semantics and behavioral details needed for safe invocation. For a log retrieval tool, the security mention helps, but parameter documentation is mandatory and missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% with 4 parameters (site, lines, filter, level) and no descriptions in schema. The description fails to compensate—it mentions none of the parameters. While 'recent' loosely implies the 'lines' parameter, 'site', 'filter', and 'level' are completely undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (PHP error log entries) and action (Get). It distinguishes from sibling WordPress tools by specifying 'PHP error log' rather than general system info or database operations. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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?

States the tool is 'Useful for debugging issues' providing context for when to use. Mentions 'Admin scope recommended for security' indicating permission requirements. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., wordpress_get_site_health for non-PHP issues).

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