wp_list_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation is a read/list operation and that URLs are included, which is useful. It does not disclose defaults like result-page ordering, whether all media or only certain types are returned, or the exact response shape, but the core read-only behavior is reasonably clear.

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, focused sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, though it is terse and leaves room for richer contextual guidance without compromising conciseness.

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 list tool with 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. The schema covers several parameters, but the description does not mention available filters, pagination defaults, or the shape of the returned list beyond URLs, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it optimally.

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 60%: page, search, and per_page have descriptions, but mime_type and media_type have no meaningful description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the agent must rely on parameter names and the enum to infer semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('media files in the WordPress media library'), and adds a concrete output signal ('with URLs'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling media tools like upload, update, get, and delete, and from other list tools like wp_list_posts.

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 verb 'List' implies the tool is appropriate when an agent needs to retrieve media-library entries, rather than fetch one item (wp_get_media) or upload new media. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, mention pagination behavior, or provide exclusions.

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