Get WordPress Media Item

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds value by disclosing the response format control (markdown vs json) and listing the metadata fields (dimensions, file size, MIME type, alt text, caption, source URL), which provides concrete behavioral insight beyond annotation hints.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-purpose first sentence, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line is informative, with no filler. The front-loaded main clause ensures immediate comprehension.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (a WPMediaItem with specific fields). It does not cover error cases like non-existent IDs, but the tool is low-complexity and the annotations plus parameter descriptions fill most gaps. Slight lack of edge-case context keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section repeats what the schema already documents (id as number, response_format as enum with default). It does not introduce additional meaning or clarify syntax beyond the schema, so no bonus is earned.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single media item by ID', which is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_list_media (listing all media) and wp_upload_media (creating/uploading). It also enumerates the exact metadata returned, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 (when you need a specific media item's metadata), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of wp_list_media for queries or wp_get_post for non-media content. The 'by ID' phrasing gives context but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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