wp_get_auth_status

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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Gets'), it doesn't specify what information the authentication status includes, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens when authentication fails, or what the response format looks like. For a tool that checks system state with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 simple status-checking tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about what 'authentication status' includes and what the response looks like. The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement given the lack of structured behavioral information.

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 parameter 'site' already well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter 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 ('Gets') and the resource ('current authentication status for a configured WordPress site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'wp_test_auth' or 'wp_switch_auth_method', which also relate to authentication functionality.

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 implies usage context ('for a configured WordPress site'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wp_test_auth' or 'wp_switch_auth_method'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this tool would be preferred over other authentication-related tools.

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