List WordPress sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool tests reachability and credentials, going beyond merely listing sites. This is meaningful behavioral context for a read-only diagnostic operation, though it does not detail output format or side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. Very efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides a clear purpose, behavioral details, and usage timing. It could mention output shape, but the diagnostic intent is well covered. This is above minimum viable, slightly short of fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the list contains and what testing is performed, which is sufficient for an empty schema.

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 identifies the tool's action ('List every WordPress site') and its scope ('this connector is configured for'), plus an additional test action. It is distinguished from sibling list tools (e.g., wp_list_post_types, wp_list_users) by focusing on site configurations and connectivity/credential checks.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this first when something is not working.' This is strong contextual direction, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly. Still, the diagnostic context is clear.

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