WordPress: Wp reading settings get

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that — a minimum bridge version (v2.16.0+) and the manage_options capability requirement — plus it decodes semantics the agent would otherwise guess at, notably that blog_public=0 means WordPress asks crawlers not to index. It does not state how failures surface when the capability check fails, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the panel and the returned field list, and the parenthetical explanations of show_on_front and blog_public each earn their space. The version and capability requirements are tacked on at the end as a dense clause, which slightly hurts scannability but adds no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it well by naming the fields and their allowed values. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'site' parameter and no note on what happens when the bridge version or capability requirement is unmet.

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 single required parameter 'site' is never mentioned in the description, so it contributes no meaning about identifier format (slug, URL, or ID) or multi-site behavior. For a lone, self-evident site selector the omission is minor, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the Settings → Reading panel') and enumerates exactly which fields come back (show_on_front, page_on_front, page_for_posts, posts_per_page, posts_per_rss, blog_public). The pairing with the sibling wordpress_specialist_wp_reading_settings_set is evident from the naming and the 'read' framing, so an agent can distinguish read vs write without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader knows this is the read half of a read/write pair, and the 'Requires ... manage_options' clause is a genuine precondition that helps gate the call. However, the description never explicitly says to use this instead of wordpress_get_settings or the *_set sibling, and it offers no when-not guidance.

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