wp_get_site_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' and the word 'blueprint' imply a read-only snapshot with no side effects, and the description lists the areas inspected. It does not discuss permissions, performance, or response size, but for a zero-parameter getter the primary behavior is reasonably clear.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get site blueprint for agent discovery') and then compactly lists the scope. Every word adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a meaningful list of return areas: theme, menus, adapters, Elementor/WooCommerce status, and allowed post types. This is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it. It stops short of describing the exact response structure or explicitly contrasting it with similar overview tools, but the tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the blueprint contains rather than inventing parameter guidance. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get site blueprint for agent discovery' and enumerates concrete contents: theme, menus, adapters, Elementor/WooCommerce status, allowed post types. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling tools that operate on individual pieces of a site.

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 phrase 'for agent discovery' gives a clear context for when this tool is useful: when an agent needs a broad site overview before acting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer wp_get_site_info or wp_site_audit, but the discovery-oriented framing provides sufficient practical guidance.

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