List content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns compact summaries by default to avoid flooding context, and that full_content is opt-in. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a practical behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 19-parameter listing tool, the description covers the key behavioral choice (summary vs full content) and relies on the schema for the rest. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling listing tools, but given the schema richness and the openWorldHint annotation, this is adequate.

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%, with every parameter already described. The description adds value by explaining the trade-off between summary and full_content, providing usage nuance beyond the schema's simple 'Include the full content body of each item.' This is a helpful additional semantic.

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 it lists items of any content type (posts, pages, or CPTs) with filtering, search, ordering, and pagination. This distinguishes it from single-item tools like get_content or get_content_by_slug that retrieve one specific item.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use full_content ('only when you genuinely need bodies') and implies it's the standard listing tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_content_summary or get_content, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to use for a single item.

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