List taxonomies

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-open-world, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value beyond them — the edit_posts capability requirement and the visibility rule that non-public taxonomies appear only for accounts that may assign their terms. The one gap is pagination/filtering behavior, though with zero args and a fixed registry that is minimal.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries distinct information (return shape, taxonomy-name contract, permissions, empty parameter list). It is dense with semicolon-chained clauses, which slightly taxes scanning, but nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the return contract and does it — it names the fields (name, label, objects) and explains what each is used for. Combined with the auth caveat and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms 'takes no arguments', which matches the empty schema and prevents an agent from fishing for filter options.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the taxonomies registered on the site') and immediately scopes it ('built-in category and post_tag included'), which distinguishes it from wp_list_terms and wp_get_post_types named later. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Routes explicitly to siblings: taxonomy names are what the term tools take, terms themselves come from wp_list_terms, and post types come from wp_get_post_types. That is clear situational context, but it never states an explicit 'call this before X' prerequisite or when-not-to-use beyond the sibling pointers.

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