wordpress_get_menu_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), implying it is non-destructive and likely safe, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 front-loads the key action ('Get all registered menu locations') without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, 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 annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with no complex inputs, it meets the minimum viable threshold but could be more informative.

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 the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all registered menu locations in the active theme'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_menus' or 'wordpress_get_menu_items', which are related but distinct operations.

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, such as 'wordpress_get_menus' (which lists menus) or 'wordpress_assign_menu_to_location' (which assigns menus). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.

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