wp_get_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read operation, implying no destructive side effects, and the static-front-page detail adds scope context. However, it does not disclose return format, authentication expectations, or any edge-case behavior, leaving some burden unmet.

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, lean sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough core orientation. It could mention what is returned, but the simple scope and the static-front-page example make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. Baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter surface to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('WordPress site settings'), and the mention of static-front-page configuration adds useful specificity. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like wp_site_info, but the reading vs. updating distinction from wp_update_settings is clear.

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 gives a clear context for when the tool is appropriate: call it to read WordPress site settings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple zero-parameter read operation the usage intent is unambiguous.

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