wordpress_list_media

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 what data is returned (media types with URLs/metadata) but omits critical behavioral context: it doesn't confirm the read-only nature of the operation, explain pagination behavior despite having page/per_page parameters, or mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with no significant redundancy. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage but doesn't severely impact clarity. Every sentence adds value beyond the tool name.

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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It partially compensates by describing return content types but fails to document pagination behavior, parameter semantics, or response structure necessary for correct invocation.

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 0%, yet the description fails to compensate by explaining any of the four parameters. While parameter names like 'site', 'per_page', and 'media_type' are somewhat self-documenting, the required 'site' parameter lacks format guidance (URL vs ID), and the filtering capabilities of 'media_type' are undocumented.

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') and resource ('media library items'), and specifies the return content types (images, videos, documents with URLs/metadata). However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'wordpress_get_media', which likely retrieves a single item versus this list operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wordpress_get_media' (single retrieval) or 'wordpress_upload_media_from_url'. There are no prerequisites, filtering recommendations, or exclusions mentioned.

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