wp_get_synced_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the response contains raw Gutenberg content, which is useful. It does not mention not-found behavior, permissions, or read-only status, though the simple getter nature reduces the risk.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant re-statements of the schema. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness leaves some useful context unstated.

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 one-parameter getter, the description names the resource and the key output detail, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the agent to infer the role of the id parameter and what happens if the pattern is not found. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain that the required 'id' parameter is the synced pattern ID or how to obtain it. The schema's property name is self-evident, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to compensate for the low 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('synced pattern'), and the qualifier 'raw Gutenberg content' clarifies what is returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing, creating, updating, or deleting synced patterns.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you need to retrieve a single synced pattern. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as wp_list_synced_patterns or wp_get_block_pattern, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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