WordPress: Wp system info

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, and the description adds genuinely useful operational context: it is companion-backed, needs no Docker socket, and requires Airano MCP Bridge v2.12.0+ plus the manage_options capability. Those are real preconditions an agent must satisfy before calling. It does not describe the shape of what comes back or failure modes when the bridge version or capability is missing.

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?

The content is a compact, front-loaded enumeration of reported fields followed by a short prerequisites sentence; nearly every clause carries information. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is mild noise, but the structure is otherwise efficient and readable.

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 read-only, single-parameter inspection tool this is close to sufficient: the read surface is well specified and prerequisites are stated. The remaining gap is input clarification for 'site' plus no indication of how results are organized, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

There is a single required parameter, 'site', and schema description coverage is 0%, so structured fields say nothing about it. The description never clarifies whether 'site' is an ID, slug, URL, or alias, leaving the one input's semantics fully undocumented. With only one parameter and no competing detail, one sentence would have closed this 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 enumerates exactly what is reported: PHP/MySQL/WordPress versions, server software, memory limits, multisite flag, debug state, and canonical paths. That is a specific, concrete scope an agent can match against a need. It stops short of differentiating from close siblings like wordpress_specialist_wp_php_info or get_system_info, which appear to overlap heavily.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no named alternative; the agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/environment-inspection call. The one contextual sentence ('Companion-backed; no Docker socket required') explains deployment prerequisites rather than when to select this tool over wp_php_info.

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