wp_get_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns raw content' gives useful return-value context, and 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication, or whether raw means unrendered/unfiltered content. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and return type are front-loaded, and 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?

For a simple getter, the description covers what it returns, but it omits any guidance on when to use this instead of related getters and does not clarify that id/ref are alternate identifiers or whether at least one is expected. The lack of an output schema makes the raw-content note helpful, but gaps remain.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and ref. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; saying 'by ID' slightly underplays ref's slug support, though the schema clarifies it.

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 and resource ('Get full content of a WordPress post') and usefully notes the return type ('Returns raw content'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from close siblings like wp_get_page or wp_get_revision, and 'by ID' understates the fact that ref can also be a slug.

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 wording implies this tool is for direct retrieval of one post when you know its identifier, in contrast to list/update/create siblings. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over wp_get_page or how to choose between id and ref, so usage context is only implied.

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