wp_performance_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time versus cached data, or what format the statistics come in. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably accesses system metrics.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 performance statistics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what types of statistics are returned, whether the data is real-time or historical, what authentication is required, or how this differs from other performance tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time performance statistics and metrics'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling performance tools like wp_performance_alerts, wp_performance_benchmark, or wp_performance_history, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling performance tools available (performance_alerts, benchmark, export, history, optimize), there's no indication of what distinguishes this statistics tool from those others or when each should be selected.

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