wp_get_site_capabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does list what the tool returns (post type slugs, taxonomy slugs, namespaces, plugin installed), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it has no side effects. The 'summary/probe' wording implies safety but not definitively.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('High-level summary'), and lists specific outputs. It is succinct and each sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It clearly states the scope and content of the return value. It could mention that the response is likely a structured object, but for a summary probe, this is not necessary. The description fully covers what an agent needs to know.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level semantics to add. The description correctly emphasizes that it is a high-level summary without requiring inputs. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 it provides a 'high-level summary' of what the WordPress install supports, listing specific content (post types, taxonomies, REST namespaces, plugin status). While the verb is implied rather than explicit, it is distinct from sibling tools like wp_get_site_info or wp_get_post_types by framing itself as a combined 'what can I do here?' probe.

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 says it is 'useful as a single probe,' implying initial reconnaissance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of more specific tools (e.g., wp_get_post_types, wp_get_taxonomies) or mention exclusions. The usage context is clear but lacks direct alternatives.

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