Fleet health report

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: sites are checked in parallel, each site is isolated so one failure never breaks the report, and results are sorted worst-first with headline issues. It also confirms the read-only nature of the operation without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with useful, specific information in just two sentences. The checklist of checks is organized efficiently, and every clause contributes meaning without repetition or boilerplate.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells an agent what the report covers, how failures are handled, and how results are ordered. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape, but for selecting and invoking the tool the description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description loosely reinforces some parameters, such as 'chosen subset' for site_ids and 'checked in parallel' for concurrency, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific function: generating one aggregate report across all configured WordPress sites or a chosen subset. It enumerates the exact checks performed and distinguishes itself from single-site tools like test_site or get_site by its fleet-wide, parallel scope.

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 gives clear context by positioning the tool as 'the starting point for agency maintenance rounds' and by clarifying it can run on every site or a chosen subset. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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