wp_get_content_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The word 'existing' indicates this is a non-mutating retrieval, and the description discloses that the response will include raw content and ad inventory metadata. It does not cover not-found behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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, tightly worded sentence. The action and primary lookup mode are front-loaded, followed by the return-value highlights. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one required parameter and simple read semantics, the description supplies the necessary information: what to pass ('ID or slug') and what to expect back ('raw content and ad inventory metadata'). The only minor gaps are unspecified not-found behavior and the exact shape of the ad inventory metadata, but these do not impair basic tool invocation.

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 schema only defines 'ref' as an integer or string with no property description. The description adds critical meaning by stating that the value can be an ID or slug, effectively explaining how to use the single required parameter. This fully compensates for the 0% structured 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('one existing Blocksy Content Block'), states the lookup method ('by ID or slug'), and names the return payload ('raw content and ad inventory metadata'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wp_list_content_blocks and wp_update_content_block.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool to retrieve a single existing content block by ID or slug. It does not explicitly state 'use wp_list_content_blocks for listing' or 'use wp_update_content_block for updates,' but the one-and-only existing semantics are enough to guide selection.

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