wp_get_content

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates a read operation through 'Get' and discloses the conditional nature of WooCommerce product data with 'if applicable,' which is useful. However, it does not state whether it modifies anything, what happens on invalid IDs, or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

A single, well-front-loaded sentence that starts with the essential action and resource, then appends relevant detail. There is no filler, and every listed field contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool returns.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description provides a reasonable picture by naming returned data categories and the conditional WooCommerce data. For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, this is largely sufficient, though it omits details about error behavior or response format, which would make it fully complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by indicating that a product type yields WooCommerce product data ('if applicable') and by associating the ID with a single-item lookup, giving extra semantic meaning beyond the schema's simple type enumeration.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single WordPress content item by ID' and clarifies the scope with 'full details including content, meta fields, categories, tags, and WooCommerce product data if applicable.' It clearly distinguishes from list-oriented siblings like wp_list_content by emphasizing 'single' and 'by ID', and from other getters by focusing on content items.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you have a content item ID and need detailed data for one item. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as wp_list_content for multiple items or wp_get_comment for comments, nor does it provide exclusion conditions. The guidance is present but not explicit.

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