wp_list_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool supports search, pagination, and status filtering, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not mention return format, pagination limits, required permissions, or how errors are handled. It's read-oriented by nature, but that's not explicitly stated, and no edge cases are covered.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('List WordPress content') and then lists supported capabilities in a compact list. Every phrase adds value, no redundancy or fluff, making it an exemplary concise definition.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functional aspects: what content types are supported, key filtering options, and pagination. It omits details like return structure or how to handle unusual custom post types, but given the simplicity of a listing operation, it's fairly complete. The lack of output schema means the description could hint at the return format, but it's not a critical gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds a brief mention of search, pagination, and status filtering, which reinforces some params but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't introduce additional nuance.

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 tool lists WordPress content, enumerates specific post types (posts, pages, products, custom post types), and lists capabilities like search, pagination, and status filtering. This is a precise verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like wp_get_content (single item) and wp_create_content (creation).

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 implies usage for listing content, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over wp_get_content (for a single item) or other listing tools like wp_list_comments. It provides clear context that it's for lists of content, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving some inference needed.

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