wp_function_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool looks up 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that entails—e.g., return format, data sources, error handling, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Look up detailed information') and efficiently specifies the scope ('about WordPress functions, hooks, or classes'). Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple lookup 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'function_name' documented as 'Exact name of the WordPress function, hook, or class to look up.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples or format details. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Look up detailed information about WordPress functions, hooks, or classes.' It specifies the verb ('look up') and resource ('WordPress functions, hooks, or classes'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_search_docs or wp_vip_search, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., wp_search_docs, wp_vip_search) or specify contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for exact name lookups versus broader searches. Without such guidance, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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