wp_media_get

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata fields, but does not mention the effect of the 'context' parameter on response shape, nor error behavior (e.g., 404 for missing id) or permission requirements. It is a read operation by nature, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists key return fields without fluff. Every word adds value.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover return values and parameter semantics. It partially does by listing some metadata, but omits explanation of the context parameter, possible response variations, and error conditions. Overall adequate for a simple fetch but with clear gaps.

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 description must compensate. It clarifies the 'id' parameter is the media item identifier, but says nothing about 'context' (view/edit/embed) or its implications. Only half the parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 fetches a single media item by id, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the metadata returned (dimensions, file size, thumbnails, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_media_list, wp_media_update, and wp_media_delete.

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 you need a single media item by id, contrasting with listing or modifying operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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