Get WordPress SEO Meta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: auto-detection of the active SEO plugin, normalization across plugins, and the presence of a 'raw' blob for unnormalized data. It also documents the response_format behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It is slightly longer than needed because it repeats schema details, but every sentence serves a purpose and it remains readable. The response shape is provided, which is valuable given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the full WPSeoMetaResult shape. It covers required parameters, mutual exclusivity, plugin auto-detection, and normalization. The tool complexity is moderate, and the description addresses all key aspects for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 repeats parameter information already present in the schema (e.g., id/slug exclusivity, content_type required, response_format default). It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('SEO meta') and its scope ('for a single post or page'), and enumerates fields (title, description, canonical, OG/Twitter, focus keyword). It clearly distinguishes from sibling write tool 'wp_update_seo_meta' by emphasizing read-only retrieval.

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 explicitly states the requirement that either 'id' or 'slug' must be provided, and that content_type is required. It implies usage (reading SEO metadata) but stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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