wordpress_get_block_editor_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get block editor configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns structured data, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any 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: 'Get block editor configuration.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a read operation with no structured context, it meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or when to use 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. According to the rules, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4, as there's no need to compensate for missing param info.

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 'Get block editor configuration' states the action ('Get') and resource ('block editor configuration'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what aspects of configuration are retrieved (e.g., settings, options, defaults) or distinguish it from siblings like 'wordpress_get_block_categories' or 'wordpress_get_block_types', which also retrieve block editor-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'wordpress_get_block_categories' and 'wordpress_get_block_types', it's unclear if this tool is for general settings, specific configurations, or overlaps with other tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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