wp_list_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context—comments on posts, filter by post ID—but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, default scope when post is omitted, or moderation status filtering. This matches the baseline of 3 given annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add the key filter. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter, read-only list tool with good annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description is mostly sufficient. It states the operation and filter clearly. However, it does not explicitly clarify default behavior when no post ID is provided (e.g., all comments) or any ordering/pagination defaults, though these are inferable from the schema and tool name.

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 coverage is 100%—both parameters (post, per_page) have descriptions. The description's 'Filter by post ID' simply restates the schema's post parameter and adds no new semantic value, especially for per_page. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (list) and resource (comments on WordPress posts), with an explicit filter by post ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wp_get_page or wp_list_posts by focusing on the comment resource and its post-scoped filtering.

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 implies usage for listing comments, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools. It does not mention that wp_get_post or wp_list_posts might be used for other purposes, nor does it clarify when to use this over comment mutation tools (wp_create_comment, wp_update_comment, wp_delete_comment).

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