List widget areas

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description correctly doesn't restate them. Instead it adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the edit_theme_options capability requirement, the return entry order, and the notable edge case that block themes with no widget areas yield only the wp_inactive_widgets entry.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, then the edge case, then the capability requirement and the sibling pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or annotations.

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, and the description fully compensates by describing the returned fields and the special wp_inactive_widgets entry. Combined with the permission note and the no-argument statement, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 reinforces this with 'takes no arguments', matching the empty schema and leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (widget areas/sidebars registered by the active theme) and immediately gives the return shape. It is clearly distinguished from the closest sibling wp_get_widgets, which is named for the contents of an area rather than the enumeration of areas.

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?

Gives the prerequisite (needs edit_theme_options) and redirects to wp_get_widgets for widgets and their settings, which is clear routing context. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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