Liste Navigationsmenüs

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 describing behavior. It communicates a read-only list operation and adds that positions are included, but it does not disclose output format, edge cases (e.g., empty menu list), or whether any data is modified. This is adequate but minimal, providing no significant behavioral context beyond the action 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, concise German sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Listet') and resource ('alle WordPress Navigationsmenüs'). It is efficiently worded with no fluff, making it appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description provides essential information: it lists all menus and their positions. Although there is no output schema, the mention of positions gives a hint about returned data. It could be more explicit about the return structure, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema covers all inputs trivially, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable given there are no parameters to document.

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 the verb 'listet' (lists) with the resource 'WordPress Navigationsmenüs' and specifies scope 'alle' (all) plus additional detail 'mit ihren Positionen' (with their positions). This clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tool nav_get_menu_items, which likely retrieves items within a specific menu.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nav_get_menu_items or wp_list_menus. It only states what the tool does, without any context, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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