wp_list_shortcodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Parse and list' implies a non-destructive operation, but the description never explicitly confirms the page content is unmodified, discloses failure behavior (page not found, both identifiers provided, or no identifiers given), or hints at the return format—especially problematic since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

Two short sentences with the core function front-loaded; there is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name. The second sentence, 'Useful for understanding page structure,' is somewhat generic but still adds a mild use-case rationale, so the structure earns solid marks without being exemplary.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three optional parameters, the description leaves significant gaps: it doesn't explain what the returned list looks like, how an agent should identify the page (prefer page_id vs page_slug, or neither), or what happens if no page matches. Given the low complexity, more could easily have been said.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (page_id, page_slug, filter_tag). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify precedence between page_id and page_slug, whether filter_tag matches exact tags only, or whether the parameters are combinable. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Parse and list all shortcodes found in a page's content.' The verb 'list' signals a read/enumeration operation, which visually distinguishes it from mutation siblings like wp_insert_shortcode and wp_replace_shortcode. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from wp_elementor_get_shortcode_content, another read-oriented shortcode tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only guidance is 'Useful for understanding page structure,' which is a vague rationale rather than actionable when-to-use direction. It never tells an agent when to pick this tool over the several shortcode-related siblings (wp_elementor_get_shortcode_content, wp_replace_shortcode, wp_insert_shortcode), and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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