wordpress_get_settings

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 successfully enumerates the specific settings fields returned, but omits safety indicators (read-only status), rate limits, caching behavior, or error conditions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value; the second sentence efficiently lists returned fields without redundancy.

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 (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate by specifying the returned data structure, though it should have documented the 'site' parameter given the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 for the required 'site' parameter, and the description fails to compensate by explaining what constitutes a valid site identifier (e.g., whether it expects a URL, site ID, or slug).

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 '[UNIFIED] Get WordPress site settings' provides a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of returned fields (title, description, URL, email, timezone, language) effectively distinguishes it from sibling content-retrieval tools like wordpress_get_post or wordpress_get_site_health.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as wordpress_get_site_health or wordpress_get_active_theme, nor does it mention any prerequisites like authentication requirements or admin privileges typically needed for settings access.

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