content.list.v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description is a single sentence and says nothing about the behavior of the tool beyond listing posts. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether this is read-only, what happens with no status specified (despite default in schema), or how list ordering/sorting works. Despite having an output schema, the behavioral surface is undisclosed.

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 minimal and efficiently states the core purpose in a single sentence. No wasted words. However, extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than conciseness, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Though an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description lacks essential context for a potentially complex listing tool. There's no information about ordering, pagination semantics, behavior with no lang specified (return all languages?), or how this differs from sibling list tools. With no annotations and minimal description, the agent gets insufficient information to confidently select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 only 33%, with 2 of 3 parameters (status, per_page) lacking meaningful descriptions. The description only mentions 'lang' explicitly (the Polylang filter). It doesn't explain default behaviors of status or per_page (e.g., default of 10, status default of publish exist in schema defaults but their semantics—what happens with status='any', what pagination means—are unexplained). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states 'List WordPress posts with optional Polylang language filter' which is clear about verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_posts' (which appears to be a similar listing function) or other content tools, and the name 'content.list.v1' is somewhat generic given multiple content-related siblings exist.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions, no mentioned alternatives, no preconditions. The description doesn't distinguish it from sibling 'list_posts' or indicate whether it's preferred for Polylang-filtered queries, only that such filter exists. No when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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