wpnav_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'compact context dump' and mentions token usage implications ('~200-300 tokens,' 'Increases token usage'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not detail aspects like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence covering the core purpose and components, and the second sentence adding key usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (initialization-focused with parameters controlling output detail), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, components, usage context, and hints at behavioral aspects like token usage. However, it could be more complete by specifying the exact format of the returned context or error scenarios, but it's adequate for a read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the two parameters (compact and include_snapshot) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why these parameters matter or their impact on initialization. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'compact context dump of the WordPress site' with detailed components listed (focus mode, available tools, active role, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it's 'Designed for AI agent initialization,' suggesting it's for setup rather than ongoing operations like wpnav_execute or wpnav_search_tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Designed for AI agent initialization'), indicating it's for initial setup. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., wpnav_describe_tools might overlap), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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