wp_blocks_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieval action and identification methods. It does not disclose what happens if no block is found, if multiple blocks match an 'unambiguous query', or whether any side effects exist. It also omits error handling, permissions, or response format details. This minimal disclosure falls short for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the identification criteria efficiently. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word 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 has a complex 'at' parameter with five variants, four total parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention return values, error behavior, default post_type, or how include_html affects the result. It is too brief to be complete for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 only 25% (only 'ref' has a description). The description adds meaning for the 'at' parameter by listing its possible discriminators, but it does not explain the structure of the 'at' object or the other parameters like post_type and include_html. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does, leaving the post_type default and include_html semantics undocumented.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('one Gutenberg block'), and five explicit identification criteria (path, hash, anchor, metadata name, unambiguous query). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_blocks_list (which lists multiple) and wp_blocks_find (which likely finds matches). The singular 'one' emphasizes a single-object retrieval, setting it apart from list/find operations.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a specific identifier (path, hash, anchor, name, or query). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as wp_blocks_find or wp_blocks_list. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusions or comparative conditions are provided.

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