wp_seo_get_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation is a read, and importantly discloses that meta is sourced from whichever SEO provider is active, adding context about provider dependency. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., missing post, provider errors) but provides meaningful behavioral insight beyond a simple 'get'.

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, front-loads the core purpose ('Read the current SEO meta for a post'), and packs a detailed field list into a parenthetical. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 simple with one parameter. The description lists the fields returned, which compensates for the absent output schema, and notes the provider dependency. It does not explain return format or error scenarios, but for a read operation of this scope, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 has one parameter (post_id) with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the post is identified by post_id but does not explicitly name or elaborate on it. Since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, the marginal value added is minimal, warranting a baseline score.

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 specifies the action ('Read'), the resource ('SEO meta for a post'), and enumerates the specific fields involved (title, description, OG, Twitter, canonical, robots, JSON-LD, focus_keyword). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_seo_set_meta (write operation) and wp_seo_detect_provider (provider detection).

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 provides a clear when-to-use context (reading current SEO meta) and explicitly instructs to call wp_seo_detect_provider first to know the active provider. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like wp_seo_analyze_post, but the prerequisite guidance is valuable and goes beyond mere implication.

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