acf_get_post_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry transparency. It describes a read operation ('get') but does not disclose the return format, behavior for missing fields, or the difference between 'formatted' and 'raw' format. Minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could provide slightly more detail about output or parameters without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema and 50% parameter coverage, the description is adequate but not rich. It states the tool retrieves 'all ACF field values' but does not specify the structure or example output, which could leave an agent guessing about the return format.

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 only 50% (post_id described). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters; it does not explain the 'format' parameter or its enum values. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions for format.

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 'Get all ACF field values for a post', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like acf_get_post_field (singular) which presumably gets a single field.

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 use when all ACF fields are needed, contrasting with acf_get_post_field for a single field. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so slightly below top score.

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