wordpress_get_internal_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state whether it modifies data or mention permissions, rate limits, or error scenarios. The return description is minimal.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the return type and usage context. It is concise but could be more structured with explicit sections.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should detail the return structure (e.g., field names). It only says 'list of internal links with anchor text and URL' without specifying if it's an array of objects or the exact fields. Edge cases not mentioned.

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%, and the description does not explain what 'site' or 'post_id' mean or their expected formats. It only mentions 'from a post's content', which is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameters.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'internal links from a post's content', and specifies the return format (list with anchor text and URL). It uniquely identifies the tool among many WordPress siblings.

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 provides a usage context: 'SEO internal linking analysis and avoiding duplicate links'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wordpress_get_post or mention when not to use it.

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