validate_credential

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

The description discloses the core behavior (validating credentials by getting user profile) but lacks details on success/failure responses or error handling. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The description is front-loaded with the action and adds a usage note, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the description covers purpose and usage context. It mentions the output schema exists but does not describe it, which is acceptable since the output schema is provided separately. Overall, it is nearly complete for a simple validation tool.

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 zero parameters, and the description does not need to add any parameter information. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the tool definition is perfectly adequate 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 clearly states the tool validates WordPress credentials by attempting to get the current user profile. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_me, which retrieves the current user without emphasis on validation.

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 explicitly says 'useful for testing authentication before performing other operations', providing a clear usage context. However, it does not contrast with the similar sibling get_me or mention when not to use it.

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