bricks_wp_list_posts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does indicate a read-only listing operation and specifies returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default status filtering, per_page limits, multi-site behavior, or any edge cases. It is minimally transparent, not richly transparent.

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?

Three sentences: list + filter, return fields, use case. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes something. 'With filtering' is somewhat redundant with the schema but not wasteful. It is compact and readable.

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 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the tool purpose and return fields, and the schema supplies the param semantics. However, the description lacks behavioral context like pagination behavior, default status filtering, or interaction with the active site, which the agent still has to infer from the sibling tools and schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including defaults, status options, and post_type guidance with examples. The description only adds a general mention of 'filtering' and does not elaborate parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List WordPress posts' with filtering. It also names the principal return fields, which lets the agent distinguish this tool from sibling page-list tools like bricks_list_pages and from single-post tools like bricks_wp_get_post. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use for content auditing or finding posts to update.' This gives the agent a clear use case. It does not exclusions or explicitly redirect to alternatives such as bricks_wp_get_post for single posts, so it stops short of a full when-not.

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