wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List posts of any type' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes metadata. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps about what the agent can expect.

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 extremely concise at just four words ('List posts of any type'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and scope (any type), making it efficient and immediately understandable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a listing operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., post titles, IDs, dates), whether results are paginated, or if there are default behaviors when parameters aren't provided. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's results and behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (post_type and count). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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 'List posts of any type' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('posts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_post_get (retrieve single post) and wp_post_create/update/delete (write operations). However, it doesn't specify whether this includes all post types by default or requires explicit filtering, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like wp_post_get (for single posts), wp_plugin_list (for listing plugins), or wp_theme_list (for themes). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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