ACF Flexible Content Layouts abrufen

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info, but it only states the action (retrieves all layouts) without disclosing output format, empty result handling, or error behavior. It adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose itself.

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 with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema or annotations. The description conveys the core function but omits return value details (e.g., array of layout objects) and any context on when it's appropriate, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 100% for both parameters (postId as 'Post/Page ID' and fieldName as 'Flexible Content Feldname'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Ruft alle Layouts eines Flexible Content Feldes ab' clearly states the tool retrieves all layouts of a flexible content field, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling ACF tools like acf_get_repeater_rows, which handle repeater fields, by explicitly targeting flexible content layouts.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios for flexible content fields or exclude repeater fields, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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