List ACF Taxonomies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Read' files, implying a non-destructive operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or return behavior. It offers basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence: 'Read ACF-managed custom taxonomy Local JSON files.' It front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words, achieving excellent brevity.

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 ideally clarify what the output contains (e.g., list of taxonomy names, objects). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return format. This reduces completeness despite the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but that is acceptable as no parameters exist. Baseline score of 4 applies since the description does not mislead or omit necessary param information.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'ACF-managed custom taxonomy Local JSON files.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling listers like 'acf_list_field_groups' and 'acf_list_post_types' by specifying taxonomies and Local JSON scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for listing field groups, post types, etc., but the description does not mention these or give any contextual cues for selection.

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