wp_get_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' reasonably signals a read-only retrieval with no mutation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or return format. It is acceptable for a simple getter but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the resource, the action, and the required lookup key efficiently.

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?

For a one-parameter getter tool, the description is nearly complete: the caller knows the action and the required ID. It would benefit from a brief note about the return value or not-found behavior, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 required 'id' integer with a minimum of 1 and no schema-level description. The description adds that the ID identifies a media attachment, which provides some contextual meaning, but it does not elaborate on formatting or edge cases. Adequate given the single obvious parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('media attachment by ID'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also stands apart from sibling tools like wp_list_media, wp_upload_media, wp_update_media, and wp_delete_media due to the 'by ID' qualifier.

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?

'Get a media attachment by ID' makes the usage condition clear: use this tool when you already know the media attachment's ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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