wordpress_get_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'complete comment data', which is helpful, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary action, and the second lists the return fields. There is no extraneous information, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It could be slightly improved by clarifying the 'site' parameter's format, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and outcomes.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description does not explain the parameters beyond the context of the tool name. While 'site' and 'comment_id' are partially self-explanatory, the description should define the expected format or range, especially for 'site'. Thus, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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: retrieving a specific WordPress comment by ID. It mentions the resource (comment) and action (get), and lists key return fields (content, author, moderation status). This distinguishes it from siblings like wordpress_list_comments (listing) and wordpress_delete_comment (deletion).

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 implies usage for retrieving a single comment by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use wordpress_list_comments for multiple comments). There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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