List taxonomy terms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List the terms' and gives the purpose, but does not disclose pagination behavior (per_page defaults to 100), the effect of the search parameter, or the return format. These are significant for a list tool, especially without an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the purpose. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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's simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the tool's purpose but omits details about pagination, search behavior, and return structure, which are relevant for an agent to fully understand what will happen when invoked.

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 50%, so the description must partially compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds the important semantic that the returned IDs are what content tools expect, but it does not explain the 'search' or 'per_page' parameters, leaving some gaps. However, the schema already covers 'taxonomy' and 'site' 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('terms in a taxonomy'), and gives concrete examples ('categories or tags'). It also clarifies the purpose ('map names to the numeric IDs that content tools expect'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_list_taxonomies (which lists taxonomies) and wp_create_term (which creates terms).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to map term names to numeric IDs for use in content tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is clearly implied, and the sibling tool list helps the agent disambiguate.

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