System-Informationen

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose what specific information is returned, potential performance impact, or whether any permissions are required. This is insufficient for a system-info retrieval tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description gives minimal context. It doesn't state what aspects of WordPress system information are included (e.g., version, php, server), nor how it differs from related tools like admin_site_health. This leaves the tool under-specified for an AI agent to select it correctly.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 clear verb ('Ruft ab' = retrieves) and identifies the resource ('WordPress System-Informationen'). It distinguishes the tool as a read-only info retrieval, but does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like admin_site_health or wp_get_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states only what it does, not the context or scenarios in which it should be preferred, nor any exclusions.

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