wordpress_site_health

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description details the exact data returned (versions, plugins, theme, writability) and the fallback for missing plugin. It also mentions the required capability. This is fairly transparent for a read-only health check.

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?

Description is a single, dense sentence that covers key points. Front-loading with '[UNIFIED]' is slightly extraneous but overall concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the comprehensive output and fallback. However, it lacks parameter details, preventing full completeness.

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 single parameter 'site' is undocumented; schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning about format or acceptable values. This is a significant gap.

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 it provides a 'Unified site-health snapshot' with specific data like WP, PHP, MySQL versions. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on WordPress site health, not general project 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Requires manage_options' is a prerequisite but no comparison with alternatives like check_all_projects_health. The fallback behavior is described but not contextualized.

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