get_post_content

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. It describes what data is returned but does not address critical behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if post_id is invalid), rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and details the included content without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies what content is retrieved but omits behavioral details and output structure. For a tool with no output schema, more information on return values would be beneficial, though the description covers the basic purpose adequately.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'post_id' clearly documented in the schema as 'Post or page ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific verb 'get' and resource 'full content of a WordPress post or page', distinguishing it from siblings like get_page (which might return metadata only) or get_seo_data (which focuses on SEO aspects). It explicitly lists what content is included: raw HTML, word count, link count, and editor type.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page, get_pages, or search_content. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others in the sibling list.

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