List Menu Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the order of items and nesting via parent IDs, and it describes the return structure. This goes beyond the annotations, so 4 is appropriate.

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 one-sentence purpose, a practical pointer for menu_id, and concise Args/Returns blocks. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded core purpose is immediately clear.

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 read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, safety annotations, and an explicit return shape, the description is complete. It even tells the user where to find the input ID. No output schema exists, but the Returns section covers what the agent will receive, so no gaps remain.

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% for both parameters, providing complete meaning for menu_id and response_format. The description's Args section simply restates the schema without adding extra semantics. The Returns block is helpful but does not enhance parameter understanding, so baseline 3 fits.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'List the items in a navigation menu, in order, including nesting (parent IDs).' It clearly distinguishes from sibling wp_list_menus by referring to 'menu_id from wp_list_menus', making the tool's role 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 gives explicit guidance on obtaining the required menu_id ('Use the menu_id from wp_list_menus'), which is practical. It does not discuss when to prefer this over alternatives, but the read-only list purpose is self-evident and the tool's role in the menu management workflow is clear.

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