wp_user_list

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

The description explicitly states the intended operation is read-only and provides a 60-second timeout. It details the underlying command and user execution context (`www-data` vs. root). This fully covers behavioral traits beyond what annotations (none were provided) would disclose.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: output format, prerequisites, execution details, and behavioral notes. No redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but not described), the description is complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, behavior, parameters, and constraints. The presence of an output schema in context reduces the need to detail return values here.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: `site_path` must be a valid WordPress site path, and `as_www_data` controls execution as `www-data` (default) or root. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema type/required flags.

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: reading WordPress users from a specified site and outputting JSON. It specifies the exact command (`wp user list --format=json`) and conditions (`site_path` must be in `wp_allowed_sites` and contain `wp-config.php`). The resource (WordPress users) is distinct from sibling tools like `wp_plugin_list` or `cron_list`, providing implicit differentiation.

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 explicitly states prerequisites: `site_path` must be in `wp_allowed_sites` and contain `wp-config.php`. It also mentions the default user context (`www-data`) and the option to run as root with `--allow-root`. While it doesn't compare to alternatives, the context is clear and actionable for deciding when to use this tool.

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