get_auth_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Report' signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is transparent about the core behavior. Yet it does not disclose the return format, potential failure modes, or whether any configuration is required before calling, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it an ideal example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough to understand its purpose and expected informational result. It could add the exact return type or possible auth source values, but the lack of these is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully describes the input surface. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter information because there is nothing to add.

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 states a specific verb (Report) and a precise resource (the WordPress auth source the server will use), making the tool's function immediately clear. The resource term 'auth source' is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_endpoint_config or get_server_health, even without naming alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to know the server's selected auth source. However, it provides no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives such as get_endpoint_config, so the usage guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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