wp_list_webhook_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states that the tool 'lists' topics, implying a read-only operation. It does not describe the output format (array of name strings vs. objects with metadata), ordering, or how the topics map to webhook creation. Nothing is misleading, but little behavioral context is added beyond the obvious semantics of 'list'.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples earn their place by disambiguating the resource without adding bulk. This is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple, zero-parameter discovery tool: the description names the resource and gives examples. However, since there is no output schema, the description is the only place to disclose what the returned topics look like and how they feed downstream tools like wp_create_custom_webhook; that connection is absent, leaving a real gap an agent would encounter when using the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful domain context by enumerating example topic categories (content, WC, forms, cache), which helps an agent interpret what 'topics' means even though no parameters require documentation.

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 ('List available custom MCP webhook event topics') and adds parenthetical examples (content, WC, forms, cache) that clarify what a 'topic' is. It is distinguishable from siblings like wp_list_custom_webhooks, which list webhook configurations rather than event topics, though this differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the returned topics are meant to be consumed by wp_create_custom_webhook, nor does it contrast with wp_list_custom_webhooks or wp_list_webhook_deliveries. The usage context is only loosely implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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