wordpress_wp_db_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only operation', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail what happens when errors are found, any permission requirements, or the output format. Despite this, the read-only declaration is a strong positive.

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 description is very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and include the read-only note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The [UNIFIED] prefix is a minor tag but does not detract.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core intent but lacks detail on the 'site' parameter and how it relates to sibling health check tools. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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% for a single required parameter 'site'. The description does not explain what 'site' refers to (e.g., ID, URL), nor does it provide any additional meaning beyond the schema. Since low coverage (<50%) requires description to compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'WordPress database', and indicates it runs integrity checks. It distinguishes from sibling db tools like export/optimize by specifying it's a check operation. Read-only annotation further clarifies its purpose.

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 database integrity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_get_site_health or wordpress_site_health. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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