List WordPress Media Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing the response_format options (markdown/json), pagination defaults, and the exact object shape returned (id, date, slug, title, etc.). This gives the agent a clear picture of behavior without needing to guess.

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 a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted Args list and a Returns section. It is efficient and front-loaded. However, it duplicates much of what the schema already states, making it slightly redundant for a description, though not verbose.

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 an 8-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it enumerates all filters, pagination controls, output formats, and the full return object shape. It also clarifies edge cases like parent=0 for unattached media. This compensates for the lack of an output schema, though it doesn't address error cases or rate limits.

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%, and the description's 'Args' section largely restates the schema parameters (e.g., 'limit' page size 1-100 default 20, 'parent' 0 for unattached). While it adds a note about response_format output readability, this is also present in the schema. The description does not materially add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List items in the WP media library with filtering and pagination', which clearly states the verb (list), resource (WP media library), and capabilities (filtering and pagination). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like wp_list_posts and wp_list_pages by specifying 'media library'.

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 communicates that this is for listing media items with filtering/pagination, which implies appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to prefer this over wp_get_media_item or other media queries. The context is clear, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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