wp_cache_info

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 this is a read operation ('Get'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the 'detailed information' returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication, return format, and differentiation from sibling cache tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about what information is returned.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'site' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('detailed cache configuration and status information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling cache tools like wp_cache_stats or wp_cache_clear, but the specificity of 'configuration and status' provides some implicit distinction.

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 like wp_cache_stats or wp_cache_clear. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparative use cases with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from tool names alone.

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