wp_cpt_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral constraint (post_type must match rest_base), which goes beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior (e.g., 404 for missing id), authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read-only fetch tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action stated first and the additional constraint following. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it an exemplar of concise structure.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema). The description covers the core action and a key constraint, but it omits context like default behavior (context=edit), possible output shape, or error handling. Given the availability of sibling tools, an agent could infer some context, but the description alone is minimally adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It adds meaning for post_type by requiring it to match rest_base, but it does not explain id or context at all. The context parameter has an enum (view, edit, embed) and a default of 'edit', but the description offers no guidance on when to use which. With 3 parameters and only one partially explained, the description falls short.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Fetch a single item of a Custom Post Type by id.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like wp_cpt_list (list), wp_cpt_update, and wp_cpt_delete. It also matches the naming convention 'get' for single-item retrieval.

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 states a concrete prerequisite: 'post_type must match rest_base from wp_get_post_types.' This tells the user how to provide a valid post_type value. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that a user would not confuse it with list/update/delete operations. The absence of explicit 'use this when...' language prevents a higher score.

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