wp_media_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'normalized media including source_url and thumbnails,' which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe pagination/ordering defaults (though schema has defaults). The verb 'List' implies read-only, mitigating the gap.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, filters in the second, return value in the third. No fluff, but the incomplete media_type list is a minor deduct.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks guidance on pagination controls, what 'normalized' means beyond source_url/thumbnails, and potential response structure. Enough to get started, but significant 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates several filters (media_type, mime_type, search, date range, parent post) but omits pagination and sorting parameters (page, per_page, order, orderby). Additionally, the media_type list is incomplete and potentially misleading: the schema enum includes 'application' and 'text,' but the description only lists 'image/video/audio/file.' This is a meaningful gap.

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's purpose: listing media library items with filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wp_media_get (single item) and wp_media_upload (upload) by specifying 'media library items' and 'filters.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to list/filter media. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like wp_media_get for single items, but the list nature is apparent. No exclusions are given, hence 4.

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