wordpress_get_reusable_blocks

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. It only states the action of getting reusable blocks without detailing traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., list format, pagination), or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate by stating what it does. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or operational constraints, which are important for a tool that retrieves data. The simplicity of having no parameters raises the baseline, but more context would improve completeness.

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, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable in this case as there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.

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 the resource 'reusable blocks (saved blocks)', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_posts' or 'wordpress_get_media', which follow a similar naming pattern but target different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it retrieves all reusable blocks or requires specific permissions. This leaves the agent without usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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