wordpress_list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a paginated list with metadata, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the call is destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the name.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too brief given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, missing an opportunity to provide more information without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should offer more context. It mentions pagination and metadata but does not explain pagination format, metadata fields, error handling, or the effect of parameters. The description is incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (site, page, status, per_page). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool lists WordPress pages and returns a paginated list with metadata. The verb 'list' and resource 'WordPress pages' are specific, and the inclusion of 'paginated' and 'metadata' adds useful detail. The tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings like wordpress_list_posts, so no further differentiation is needed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wordpress_list_posts or wordpress_list_custom_posts. It does not mention filtering, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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