wp_performance_benchmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of benchmarks (session-wide, all sites) but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a comparison tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and the scope of benchmarks. However, it lacks details about the output format or behavior when no data is available, which would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The parameters (site, category, includeRecommendations) are well-documented in the schema, and the description offers no extra nuance.

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 the tool's purpose: comparing current performance against industry benchmarks. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and identifies the resource (current performance vs benchmarks). The note distinguishes it from per-site metrics, helping to differentiate from sibling tools like wp_performance_stats.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by explaining that benchmarks are session-wide aggregated metrics, not per-site. This guides the agent to use it for overall performance comparison rather than site-specific analysis. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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