wordpress_get_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about return contents ('complete comment data including content, author, and moderation status'), but omits other behavioral traits such as error handling (404 if comment not found), authentication requirements, or rate limiting.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose, the second explains return value. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. The description is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 this is a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by describing the return payload structure. It could be improved by noting error conditions (e.g., comment not found), but it provides sufficient context for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, leaving both 'site' and 'comment_id' undocumented in the structured schema. While the description mentions 'by ID' (implicitly referencing comment_id), it fails to explain the 'site' parameter format (domain, site ID, etc.) or provide examples, inadequately compensating for the schema coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('Get'), resource ('WordPress comment'), and lookup method ('by ID'). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix doesn't hinder clarity, and the description effectively distinguishes this single-item retrieval from sibling tools like wordpress_list_comments, wordpress_create_comment, and wordpress_update_comment.

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 phrase 'Get a specific... by ID' implies this tool is for single-item retrieval when the ID is known, suggesting wordpress_list_comments might be preferred for browsing. However, there is no explicit guidance stating when NOT to use this tool or naming specific alternatives for cases where the ID is unknown.

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