wp_get_acf

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

The description explicitly states the operation is read-only, which implies no side effects, and describes the error behavior for missing ACF. It does not detail further side effects or error codes, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 concise but includes a slightly redundant second sentence about return types. Overall it is well-structured, focused, and avoids unnecessary filler, though a minor trim could improve clarity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: it specifies the output format, the types of values, prerequisites, and error behavior. It does not address edge cases like pagination, but these are less relevant for a simple ACF retrieval.

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 provides no descriptions, but the tool description explains that 'install' is the WP Engine install name and instructs the agent to obtain 'post_id' from wp_find_page or wp_get_content. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare parameter names.

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 (read), the resource (page/post's ACF values), and the output format (JSON object). It also distinguishes this read operation from the sibling wp_set_acf tool by explicitly noting 'Read-only'.

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 provides practical guidance by specifying the prerequisite that the REST transport and ACF must be active, and explains that a site without ACF returns an error rather than crashing. It effectively tells the agent when and how to use this tool.

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