List Navigation Menus

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the permission requirement (admin edit_theme_options) and details the return structure. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss pagination or edge cases. No contradictions found.

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 tight and front-loaded: it states the purpose in one sentence, then lists parameters and return format. Every line earns its place, and there is no fluff. The structure (description, args, returns) is easy to scan.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return format, required permissions, and the scope ('all'). It does not mention potential errors, but that is not critical for a read-only list operation. The information provided is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter 'response_format' with its enum values, default, and a clear description. The tool description repeats this information in the Args section without adding new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'List all WordPress navigation menus with their IDs, slugs, and assigned theme locations.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_list_menu_items, which targets menu items rather than menus. The scope ('all') and output fields are explicitly stated.

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 clear context: it is for listing all navigation menus, and it notes the required admin capability ('edit_theme_options'). It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like wp_list_menu_items, but the purpose and name make the intended use obvious. No exclusions are mentioned, but none are necessary for a simple list operation.

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