wp_whoami

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only introspection operation, and specifying 'authenticated user and granted capabilities' reveals exactly what data is exposed. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, but the wording strongly implies a non-mutating diagnostic.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the diagnostic use case. There is no filler, and every clause contributes to selecting and using the tool.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key use case. It does not describe the return format in detail, but 'user and granted capabilities' sufficiently sets expectations. Minor gap: no explicit statement about what happens when no user is authenticated.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter details to clarify. The description adds context by implying the tool operates on the current authenticated session, which is helpful. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource: the authenticated WordPress user and their granted capabilities. This uniquely distinguishes it from the large sibling set, none of which target authentication or capability introspection.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for diagnosing 403 errors.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It does not enumerate when not to use it, but no sibling performs this function, so explicit exclusions are less necessary.

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