Current WordPress user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The word 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description discloses what is returned (roles and capabilities). This is transparent for a whoami-style tool, though it doesn't discuss authentication context 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 short sentences, zero wasted words. The first states the action and output, the second gives the practical use case. Perfectly front-loaded and 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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter whoami tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and when to use it. No output schema is present, but the description adequately covers the return content (roles and capabilities) and the purpose.

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 schemas describes the 'site' parameter fully ('Configured site name. Omit to use the default site.'), so baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'on a site' aligns with the parameter but adds no extra semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource 'the authenticated user on a site' and details the scope ('including roles and capabilities'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_list_users, which lists users rather than showing the current authenticated user.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this to check what changes you are actually allowed to make.' This provides a concrete use case that connects to the modification-focused sibling tools. It doesn't name alternatives, but the intent is clear.

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