sitebay_wordpress_proxy

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 states the tool proxies requests but lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. The mention of HTTP methods like 'post' and 'delete' implies potential mutations, but this is not explicitly clarified, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured for clarity, though the 'Returns' section is minimal. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like authentication or error handling. The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, but overall, it leaves significant gaps for a proxy tool with potential mutations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'fqdn: The site domain', 'path: WordPress API path') and provides an example for 'path'. However, it does not fully document all parameters, such as the format for 'query_params_json' or valid values for 'method', leaving some ambiguity beyond the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('proxy requests') and resources ('WordPress site's REST API'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sitebay_posthog_proxy and sitebay_shopify_proxy by specifying the WordPress API target, making the scope unambiguous.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, such as authentication or site ownership, nor does it differentiate from other proxy tools like sitebay_posthog_proxy or sitebay_shopify_proxy, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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