wp_baseline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing the output categories (content counts, database size, etc.), implying a read-only audit. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention performance implications or permissions, which leaves some ambiguity for a comprehensive audit tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then enumerates the key return categories in a comma-separated list. There is no wasted wording, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

This is a fairly complex audit tool with no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining return values. It lists six major categories, which gives a solid conceptual overview. However, it lacks detail on the structure or format of the returns and does not mention potential side effects or performance considerations, leaving some gaps for a tool of this scope.

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 already provides a complete description of the single parameter (site_id as 'WP Engine environment name'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool runs a comprehensive baseline audit on a WordPress site, with a specific verb and resource. It lists six distinct return categories, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_seo_check or wp_plugin_artifacts that focus on narrower areas.

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 usage as a broad audit for getting an overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of the more specific sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is present but not fully explicit, so it earns a 3.

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