wp_site_audit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says an audit is run and lists audited areas, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies or fixes anything, what the output looks like, or whether there are performance or safety implications. The 'audit' wording implies no side effects, but this is not explicit.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates five audit categories. 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, the description covers the main operational scope well, listing the audit categories. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return format, severity levels, or whether the audit includes remediation recommendations. Also, because 'SEO issues' overlaps directly with the sibling wp_audit_seo tool, the absence of a clarifying comparison leaves a meaningful completeness gap.

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 description coverage is vacuously 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The description still adds useful context about the scope of the audit, which is sufficient for a parameterless 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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a clear resource ('site content audit'), and enumerates concrete audit dimensions: empty pages, missing alt text, redirect loops, draft backlog, and SEO issues. This distinguishes it from related siblings like wp_audit_seo, which is narrower in scope, and wp_health_check, which focuses on system health rather than content.

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 a broad content audit is needed), but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternatives to choose. In particular, it does not clarify how wp_site_audit relates to the overlapping wp_audit_seo tool, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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