wp_test_auth

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or if it requires any permissions. Details about diagnostics output are vague. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 concise with a well-structured single sentence plus bulleted examples. It is front-loaded, though the bullet list contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Test connection' is implied by the title).

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 diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage examples. However, it does not describe the output format, prerequisites, or potential error conditions, leaving gaps.

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 a clear description of the site parameter. The tool description adds usage examples (e.g., --site='my-site') but does not provide significant additional meaning 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 clearly states the tool tests authentication and connectivity with detailed diagnostics. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like wp_switch_auth_method, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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?

Usage examples provide clear contexts: after configuring credentials, troubleshooting connection issues, regular health checks. Multi-site usage is also addressed. However, no alternative tools are mentioned, and when not to use is not stated.

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