wordpress-block-types-schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'available WordPress block types' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or how data is returned (e.g., list, schema). The description is vague and lacks critical operational details for a tool with no structured 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's focus. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could be more front-loaded with action verbs (e.g., 'List available WordPress block types...') to improve clarity without adding waste.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of block types, their schemas, or usage examples), which is crucial for a tool with no parameters. For a tool that likely provides data, more context on output behavior is needed to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't have to compensate for any gaps.

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 states the tool provides 'available WordPress block types that can be used for content creation,' which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what action the tool performs (e.g., list, retrieve, or describe). It distinguishes from siblings like create-post or update-post by focusing on block types rather than posts, but doesn't clarify if it's a read operation or configuration tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for content creation, but it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., before creating a post to know available blocks) or exclusions. Without annotations or context, usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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