wordpress_get_template_parts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation ('Get') and provides examples, but gives no information about output format, error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The minimal wording adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with essential information only, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a clarifying parenthetical. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so the description conveys the core purpose, but it lacks clarity on what the returned data structure looks like (e.g., an array of part slugs) and how it differs from the similarly named get_theme_templates. Enough to be usable but with noticeable gaps.

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 zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. Per rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details. This is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('theme template parts'), with a parenthetical clarifying that these are block theme components like header and footer. This strongly differentiates from sibling tools like get_theme_templates or get_global_styles.

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 gives clear context by specifying that it targets block theme components (header, footer), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the examples make the scope understandable for a simple getter.

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