List WordPress Pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it explains page hierarchy and menu_order ordering, mentions statuses such as draft/private/trash can be listed, and references the return envelope shape via wp_list_posts. No contradictions 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-organized: a lead sentence with purpose and site scope, a brief paragraph differentiating pages from posts, a scannable Args list, and a Returns note. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers purpose, page-vs-post semantics, all parameters, and return format via a reference to the wp_list_posts envelope. However, since there is no output schema, the return envelope shape is only partially specified by reference; it does not detail field names or pagination behavior, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description's Args section simply re-states this information without adding new semantic value. The 'Use 0 for top-level pages' note duplicates the existing parameter description, so it offers no additional insight.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List static pages on arsnovasingers.org.' It provides a specific verb+resource+scope and distinguishes pages from posts by noting hierarchy, menu_order ordering, and evergreen content examples (About, Concerts, Education, Contact). This differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_list_posts.

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 contrasts pages with posts ('they are hierarchical, ordered by menu_order rather than date, and used for evergreen content'), which guides when to use this tool over wp_list_posts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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