Wordpress List Media

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is light, but it still adds essentially nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, default ordering, or rate limits. Only "with filtering" hints at behavior, which the schema already conveys via mime_type/media_type/search.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail rather than being tight because everything necessary was already said.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, return values and inputs need no explanation in the description. What is missing is routing context — when to use this vs. wordpress_get_media or wordpress_search_posts equivalents — leaving the definition only minimally complete for its role in a 29-tool set.

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%, so all seven parameters (page, per_page, order, orderby, search, mime_type, media_type) are fully self-documented. The description adds no extra semantics such as valid mime_type formats or ordering defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("List WordPress media items"), which cleanly separates it from wordpress_get_media, wordpress_upload_media and the other media siblings. However, it never clarifies scope (all media vs. filtered subsets) or why one would pick this over its siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"with filtering" gestures at the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as wordpress_get_media for a single item. An agent must infer everything from the schema.

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