wordpress_wp_transient_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the listing is limited to 100 transients. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limit considerations. The description adds some value beyond the input schema but leaves gaps.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the primary action. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is an unnecessary tag that adds no value to an agent. Overall, it is concise, but the tag slightly reduces clarity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description partially covers the purpose and limit. However, it fails to explain the 'site' parameter or describe the output format (e.g., array of objects). For a simple listing tool, more context is needed to be complete, especially since there are sibling tools with similar names.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'site' parameter. The description does not mention 'site' at all, leaving its purpose (e.g., site URL or ID) entirely unspecified. This is a critical failure for a tool with one required parameter, as the agent has no guidance on what value to provide.

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 action (list transients), the resource (transients in the database), and the scope (limited to first 100). It also mentions what is shown (keys with expiration times), which is specific to this tool. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_transient_flush or wordpress_wp_transient_delete_all, which perform different operations.

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 indicates the tool is 'useful for debugging caching issues,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., wordpress_transient_flush for clearing). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, which is adequate but not excellent.

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