wp_list_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a non-destructive read and the examples reveal pagination (--per_page/--page), but defaults (page size, sort order), rate limits, and required permissions are unstated. 'Enhanced metadata display' is an unexplained trait that adds little actionable information.

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 leading sentence front-loads purpose and scope, and the examples are terse and scannable. Six example lines is slightly more inventory than needed for a single-parameter tool, but nothing is padded prose.

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 no output schema, the description should at minimum convey result shape and pagination defaults; it conveys neither, and it describes filter parameters the schema does not expose. The description is serviceable but leaves an agent with an incomplete and partially inconsistent picture of the call surface.

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 100% for the single exposed parameter (site), so the baseline is 3. The risk here is the opposite of a gap: the examples advertise --search, --status, --categories, --per_page and --page flags that do not appear anywhere in the input schema, which could lead an agent to pass parameters the schema rejects.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists posts from a WordPress site') and enumerates the filtering dimensions (search, status, category/tag). It never names the sibling it is contrasted with (e.g., wp_get_post for a single post, wp_list_pages for pages), so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource name alone.

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 six usage examples clearly show how to invoke the tool for search, status, category and pagination cases, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over wp_search_site, wp_get_post, or wp_list_pages, and no prerequisites (auth, site configuration) are mentioned.

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