wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a creation/generation action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), permissions required, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies the filesystem or plugin structure.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of generating code skeletons (likely involving file creation and plugin integration), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects, output details, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 schema already documents both parameters (slug and plugin). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of the slug or what 'plugin' refers to in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation.

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 action ('Generate') and the resource ('Gutenberg block skeleton'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like wp_scaffold_plugin and wp_scaffold_theme by specifying 'block', but could be more specific about what 'skeleton' entails compared to other block-related tools that might exist.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a plugin context, or contrast with other scaffolding tools like wp_scaffold_plugin, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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