audit_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the asynchronous nature ('Submits to the job queue and polls until complete'), the timeout ('up to 20 minutes'), the return value ('full audit summary'), and the token cost for extra engines. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and uses compact phrases like '(+1 token)' to convey cost without verbosity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of returning the 'full audit summary' fulfills that gap. It also explains the job queue and timeout, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke and handle the tool's behavior.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description repeats the engines option but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema contains, so a 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 a specific verb 'Trigger' and identifies the resource 'security audit' for a WordPress plugin, with the method 'by its wp.org slug'. This clearly distinguishes from siblings like audit_plugin_zip (which implies zip-based audits) and audit_plugins_bulk (which handles multiple plugins).

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 clearly states the targeting mechanism ('by its wp.org slug') and the optional engine option, giving the agent enough context to know when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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