wp_list_content_blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool lists existing blocks and explicitly does not create positioning slots, which is useful non-mutation context. However, it omits other behavior an agent might need, such as response shape, empty-result behavior, pagination semantics, or any auth/read-only guarantees.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main action and key output features, and the second clarifies a non-creation boundary. Some jargon such as 'hook clues' and 'positioning slots' is undefined, but the overall length is well controlled.

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 list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose and one boundary. It is missing usage guidance and any detail about return format or how search/status filters behave, so it is minimally adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 50%; page and per_page already have descriptions, and status has a self-documenting enum while search is inferable from its name. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but it also does not mislead. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 and resource: 'List existing Blocksy Content Blocks.' It also adds output details (slug/hook clues, structured advertisement inventory), which helps distinguish this listing tool from singular get/update siblings like wp_get_content_block 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 does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wp_get_content_block, wp_blocks_list, or wp_update_content_block. It gives a negative hint ('Does not create positioning slots') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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