WordPress: Wp site identity get

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the version/capability gate and the note that it is companion-backed for consistency with the writer route — genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations. It does not describe failure modes when manage_options is missing or when the bridge version is too old, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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, no filler, with the field enumeration front-loaded right after the verb. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag and the trailing requirements sentence are compact and earn their space, though the requirements clause could have been folded in more cleanly.

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 compensates well by listing every returned field, and it discloses the capability and bridge-version prerequisites. The only meaningful omission is any explanation of the required "site" argument, which leaves the definition slightly incomplete for invocation.

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% for the single required "site" parameter, so the description carries the full burden — but it never mentions the parameter at all. An agent cannot tell from this text whether "site" expects an ID, a slug, a URL, or an alias, which is a material gap for a required argument.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read site identity") and then enumerates exactly which fields are returned: blogname, blogdescription, site_icon, custom_logo, blog_charset, WP version, admin email. This makes it trivially distinguishable from the write-side sibling wordpress_specialist_wp_site_identity_set and from generic readers like wp_option_get.

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?

It supplies real preconditions ("Requires Airano MCP Bridge v2.16.0+ and manage_options") and a rationale for preferring this route ("Companion-backed read so responses stay consistent with the writer route"), which implicitly steers the agent away from generic option reads. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it falls just below a 5.

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