List posts / pages / custom content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: returns compact summaries rather than full content, and points to the correct tool for full text. However, it does not mention pagination, authorization, or side effects, though the listing operation is inherently read-only.

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 first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides a valuable behavioral note and directs to an alternative. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 the tool has 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important contextual aspects: what it lists, that it returns summaries, and how to get full content. It omits default behavior details (e.g., default post_type, pagination) but these are available in the schema. The description is adequate for a complex listing tool but not exhaustive.

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 69%, leaving 4 of 13 parameters undocumented (page, order, author, per_page). The description only mentions 'filters and search' generically, adding no specific meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is moderate but not high, a 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List content of any post type with filters and search.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wp_list_post_types (lists types) and wp_get_content (gets full text) by stating it returns compact summaries and directing to wp_get_content for full text.

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 explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'call wp_get_content for the full text of one item.' It implies use for listing/searching content summaries, but does not mention other potential exclusions or comparisons with wp_search or other list tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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