wordpress_get_site_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'Returns comprehensive health status' without disclosing read-only safety, rate limits, error conditions, or whether 'accessibility' refers to WCAG compliance or uptime. Lacks critical behavioral context for a diagnostic tool.

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 sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, return value in the second. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adequate high-level purpose description but incomplete due to missing parameter semantics, ambiguous 'accessibility' terminology, and lack of output structure details. Sufficient for basic identification but leaves operational gaps given the lack of output schema and annotations.

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% (no description for the 'site' parameter). The description mentions 'site health' implying the parameter's existence but fails to specify expected format (URL vs site ID), constraints, or examples. Insufficient compensation for the undocumented 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 'Check[s] WordPress site health' with specific scope including 'WooCommerce, and SEO plugin availability'. However, the term 'accessibility' is ambiguous (could mean web accessibility a11y or server availability), and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained jargon that doesn't clarify differentiation from siblings like check_all_projects_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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_advanced_system_info or check_all_projects_health. No prerequisites, error handling guidance, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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