Get site configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true (indicating a remote call). The description adds the 'secrets redacted' behavior and specifics of what the WordPress install reports, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but it doesn't delve into rate limits or potential delays from the remote query either.

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?

One effective sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('full configuration for one site') and then appends the supplementary info. No wasted words, though it could be broken into clearer parts. It's concise 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the specific pieces of information returned (secrets redacted, name, description, timezone, WordPress version, permalink shape, capabilities). Combined with the schema-provided parameter behavior, this is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that the response might be large or structured in any particular way.

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 100%, so the parameters site_id and include_remote are fully described in the schema. The description does not add new meaning about parameters, but it inherently ties to site_id by saying 'one site'. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full configuration for one site'), with explicit details on what is included (secrets redacted, WordPress install info such as name, timezone, version). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_site_settings or site_info by covering the broad config plus remote site info.

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 (it gets configuration and site-reported info) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are given. The context is clear, but an agent might still wonder how this differs from get_site_settings or site_info.

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