Get site intelligence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the fallback to core REST data when the companion plugin is absent and states it 'says which parts it could not see,' which is a transparency about limitations. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for partial results.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact scope of the return value, and the second packs usage guidance plus behavioral nuance. Every clause earns its place, making it both concise and structurally sound.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return. It lists the main data categories and the fallback behavior, giving an agent a good mental model of what to expect. It omits precise formatting or data types, but for a diagnostic aggregation tool this is adequate. The description is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation at a high level.

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 schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage nuance beyond the schema, such as how include_health interacts with the plugin or how parameters affect the output. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('get') and a comprehensive resource ('diagnostic picture'), enumerating concrete data points (WordPress/PHP versions, active theme/plugins, database size, health checks, updates, server config). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_site or get_site_settings by framing itself as the full one-call diagnostic, which is immediately clear.

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 explicitly says 'Start here when auditing a site or diagnosing a problem,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings to use instead, but the 'start here' guidance implies this is the first step, leaving follow-up to more specific tools. This is clear context without exclusions.

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