wordpress_get_post

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It correctly implies read-only behavior by stating 'Get' and describing return data, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive nature, error conditions, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences. No fluff. Front-loaded with the core action. Every part serves a purpose: identification, scope, and return value summary.

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?

Lacks parameter explanations for 'site' and 'fields', and no usage guidance relative to siblings. However, it adequately describes return value content (content, metadata, author). For a simple get tool, it is moderately complete but could better support an agent in selecting and invoking 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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. Description only explains 'post_id' via 'by ID', but leaves 'site' and 'fields' unexplained. The 'site' parameter's role is ambiguous (URL? identifier?), and 'fields' default null is not clarified. Does not add sufficient meaning beyond schema structure.

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?

Description states 'Get a specific WordPress post by ID' with verb and resource clearly defined. It emphasizes returns complete data, distinguishing it from listing tools like wordpress_list_posts. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix hints at a unified interface, but does not detract from clarity.

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?

Usage is implicitly for retrieving a single post by ID, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is provided. Given many sibling tools (e.g., wordpress_create_post, wordpress_list_posts), the description lacks guidance on choosing this tool over alternatives. It assumes the agent knows to use this when a specific post ID is available.

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