wp_test_auth

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool tests connectivity and provides diagnostics, but does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or rate limits. 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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Bullet points organize usage examples, but some are redundant (test, verify, troubleshoot, health check). No wasted sentences.

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 with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and when to use it. Lacks details on output format, but that is acceptable for a diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'site' parameter already described. The description adds marginal value through usage examples (e.g., --site flag), but does not elaborate beyond the schema's explanation.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool tests authentication and connectivity with detailed diagnostics. Usage examples highlight specific scenarios. Distinguishes from siblings like wp_get_auth_status and wp_switch_auth_method by emphasizing connection diagnostics.

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?

Examples provide clear contexts: after configuring credentials, troubleshooting, health checks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it.

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