wp_performance_benchmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares performance against benchmarks but doesn't describe what data is compared, how benchmarks are sourced, whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or the format of results. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence: 'Compare current performance against industry benchmarks.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or result format. With schema coverage at 100%, parameters are documented, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in overall completeness.

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 all three parameters (site, category, includeRecommendations) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the significance of categories or how recommendations are generated. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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: 'Compare current performance against industry benchmarks.' It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'current performance' against 'industry benchmarks.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_performance_stats or wp_performance_history, which might also involve performance data but serve different functions.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for benchmarking, or how it differs from sibling tools such as wp_performance_stats (which might show stats without comparison) or wp_performance_optimize (which might suggest improvements). This lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.

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