wp_get_acf_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' communicates a read-only operation, 'values and catalog' indicates the shape of the response, and 'requires ACF plugin' surfaces the key dependency. It does not cover error behavior if the plugin is missing, but for a simple read the essentials are present.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded verb and resource, with the prerequisite tucked into a parenthetical. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the input schema.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the input, the plugin dependency, and the high-level return contents. It could add detail about the exact catalog/response format, but no output schema exists and the description is adequate for selection and 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 single post_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with 'WordPress post or page ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only a brief confirmation that the tool applies to posts/pages, not meaningful new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: ACF field values and catalog for a post/page. It also notes the ACF plugin prerequisite, which distinguishes it from generic metadata or page getters like wp_get_meta_catalog and wp_get_page.

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 context 'for a post/page' and the plugin prerequisite imply when the tool applies, and 'requires ACF plugin' is a useful condition. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance compared with sibling read tools like wp_get_meta_catalog.

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