wordpress_get_site_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions return values (title, description, URL, timezone, settings) but lacks any mention of authentication, error behavior, or side-effect profile. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise list of return fields. No filler or redundant repetition.

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 parameterless getter with an output schema, this description is adequate. The return values are partially described, while the output schema likely covers full details. Missing explicit usage context versus sibling connection-test tool, but this is minor for such a straightforward operation.

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, and the input schema is empty. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics because there are none to document.

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 'Get WordPress site information' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and no similar sibling tool exists, so it distinguishes itself naturally.

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 implies usage (when site information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. The presence of siblings like test_connection is not addressed, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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