wordpress_probe_capabilities

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

The description discloses that it returns 'companion_available: false' when missing/outdated and is cached 24h. It implies a read-only probe, but lacks explicit statement about non-destructiveness. With no annotations, this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Without output schema, the description provides a good overview of what is returned (capability set, routes, companion_available flag). Adequate for a probe tool, but could mention return format.

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% and the description does not explain the 'site' parameter. The only hint is in caching note, but 'site' meaning is ambiguous (URL? ID?). Description fails to add value over 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 probes the companion plugin for the effective capability set and companion routes, with a specific verb and resource. It is unique among siblings as a probing tool.

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 implies usage for checking capabilities and routes, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor mention alternatives among siblings.

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