wp_list_block_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states 'read-only' (indicating no mutation) and 'optionally filter client-side' (implying the server returns all patterns and filtering happens locally). This adds some transparency, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any auth requirements. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The phrase 'optionally filter client-side' is efficient and adds value without excess. No redundant wording.

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 simple listing tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explicit differentiation from similar listing tools (e.g., wp_list_synced_patterns) and doesn't mention what the returned data contains. However, given the name and context, an agent can likely call it correctly. It could be improved by stating that it returns block patterns (not synced patterns) and noting the absence of server-side filtering.

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 elaborate on any of the three optional parameters (search, source, category). 'Optionally filter client-side' hints at filtering but doesn't specify which parameters enable which filters. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's bare definitions.

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?

Description states a specific verb (List), resource (registered read-only core, theme, and plugin patterns), and scope of filtering. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wp_list_synced_patterns (synced patterns) and wp_blocks_list (content blocks) by specifying 'block patterns' and 'read-only'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context about related tools (e.g., wp_list_synced_patterns for synced patterns, wp_get_block_pattern for a single pattern). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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