wp_list_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the basic action and filter options but omits crucial behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, default ordering, response format, or any rate-limiting considerations. For a tool that lists potentially many items, this lack of detail could lead to incorrect assumptions about the return payload.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function and includes relevant examples without unnecessary verbosity. The structure is clear and to the point, though it could benefit from a brief note on usage context.

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 and the presence of full schema descriptions, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps. There is no output schema, so the description should arguably mention what the response contains (e.g., array of media objects with IDs, URLs, etc.) or how results are ordered. Without this, an agent might not know what to expect from the call, though the core capability is clear.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by providing examples of MIME types ('image/jpeg, video/mp4, etc.') and clarifying that search is by name/filename. This is helpful but not significantly beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter's purpose.

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 'list', the resource 'media files', and the scope 'WordPress media library'. It also specifies two key capabilities (filtering by MIME type and searching by name) which immediately distinguish it from sibling tools like wp_get_media (single retrieval) or wp_upload_media (upload). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 media but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes filtering and search capabilities, which suggests typical browsing scenarios, but there is no explicit direction such as 'use wp_get_media to fetch a single item' or 'use wp_delete_media to remove'. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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