wordpress_get_media_url

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the function's return type ('Media URL information') and parameters, but does not disclose what the function actually returns (e.g., whether the URL is absolute or has size variants), nor any side effects (though this appears read-only). It is neutral and non-contradictory, but does not enrich behavioral understanding significantly.

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 concise (three short bullet points plus a header) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, avoiding fluff. The format is structured for quick parsing.

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 an output schema (though not provided here), the description need not explain return values, but it does have one line about returns. The tool is relatively simple (2 parameters, one required), but it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., if media_id is invalid) or how size affects the URL. It is complete for a basic use case but lacks depth for robustness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters ('media_id' and 'size') but does not add additional context beyond the schema. It mentions allowed size values ('thumbnail, medium, large, full') inline, which is helpful, but no further semantics like format or example. This is adequate but minimal.

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's purpose: retrieving the public URL for a WordPress media item. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('media item'), and is distinct from siblings like 'wordpress_get_media' (which likely fetches media details) and 'wordpress_upload_media'. It is not as explicit about scope as it could be, but it is clear enough.

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 implies usage when you need a URL for a media item, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., 'wordpress_get_media' for metadata) or any prerequisites. It gives a basic sense of context but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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