wordpress_get_internal_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (list with anchor text and URL) but omits behavioral details like whether it returns relative or absolute URLs, handles links in excerpts vs content, has rate limits, or requires specific capabilities.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences covering purpose, return value, and use case. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix wastes front-loaded space without adding semantic value, slightly hurting the score.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 primitive parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers the basic contract. However, it could better specify output format details (JSON structure, field types) and error conditions given the missing structured metadata.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It implicitly documents post_id by referencing 'a post's content,' but provides no guidance on the 'site' parameter (e.g., whether it's a URL, slug, or identifier). Parameter names are intuitive, but the description only partially covers the contract.

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 specific action (extract internal links) and resource (post's content), distinguishing it from general post retrieval tools like wordpress_get_post. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without clarifying purpose, and it could explicitly mention this is WordPress-specific.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('Useful for SEO internal linking analysis'), which hints at when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wordpress_get_post (which returns full content) or wordpress_get_post_seo, and doesn't mention prerequisites like site access.

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