wp_list_synced_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it lists patterns; it does not mention that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, default ordering, filtering behavior, or any potential side effects. The agent is left to assume it is a safe list operation without explicit assurance.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the purpose and scope. There is no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. This is an exemplary model of 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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about the return format, filtering options, or default behavior beyond what the schema already conveys. It also does not distinguish this listing tool from the many sibling list tools, leaving potential ambiguity. For a simple list operation, it is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to use it with confidence.

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 33% (page and per_page have descriptions), and the tool description adds no explanation of any parameters. It does not clarify what 'search', 'status', 'orderby', or 'order' do beyond their enum values in the schema. Given the low coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so, leaving parameter semantics largely 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 identifies the action (List) and the resource (reusable synced patterns stored in wp_block), which is a specific subset distinct from other list tools like wp_list_pages or wp_list_block_patterns. The use of 'synced patterns' and the storage location adds precision that separates it from generic block pattern listings.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description's specificity, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_list_block_patterns or wp_list_posts. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and description.

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