Call any REST endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool is a direct passthrough and offers route discovery, but it does not mention authentication, response format, error behavior, or rate limits. The added context is useful but not thoroughly transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds operational value. It avoids repetition of schema details and gives immediately actionable guidance.

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 generic nature and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently informs the agent about scope, alternatives, and route discovery. It does not describe response structure, but that is inherently endpoint-dependent and not reasonably expected for a generic REST caller.

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 high (80%), and the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds valuable semantic nuance beyond the schema, especially the path convention ('without the /wp-json prefix') and the special empty string to list routes, which directly aids invocation.

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 and resource: 'Call any WordPress REST route directly.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the fallback for anything the dedicated tools do not cover, with concrete examples like WooCommerce, ACF, and menus.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for anything the dedicated tools do not cover') and implies when not to use it by pointing to dedicated tools. It also provides a concrete strategy for discovering available routes by calling GET on an empty path.

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