ACF Options Page abrufen

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, but it only states the action. It does not mention read-only behavior, error conditions, or what happens if ACF Pro is missing, though the parenthetical hints at a dependency.

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?

One short German sentence, front-loaded and free of fluff; every word is informative.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema. It doesn't describe the return format, whether it returns all fields or a subset, or the behavior when the options page doesn't exist. Minimal viable but leaves 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for optionsPage (ID/Slug) and a default. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter.

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 the tool retrieves ACF Options Page fields, using a specific verb and resource. The explicit 'Options Page' distinguishes it from sibling ACF getter tools for posts/users/terms, and the ACF Pro note adds context.

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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like acf_get_post_fields, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ACF Pro hint. The agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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