wp_get_cpt_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval operation via 'Get,' but it does not describe return format, error behavior, or whether unsupported/draft items are included. The basic read behavior is transparent, but edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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 filler. It names the action, the resource, the retrieval key, and the singularity of the result in eight words.

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 two-parameter getter, the description is almost sufficient, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. It does not state what an 'item' contains, how post_type interacts with the lookup, or what happens when the ID is not found, leaving some reasonable gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does: 'custom post type' gives semantic context to post_type and 'by ID' explains the id parameter. Both required parameters are inferable from the description, though no explicit parameter-by-parameter mapping is provided.

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 ('custom post type item') with a clear selection criterion ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from list/create/update/delete sibling tools in the same CPT family.

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 phrasing implies the tool should be used when a single CPT item and its ID are already known, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like wp_list_cpt_items or wp_get_post, or state when one should choose this over another.

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