audit_plugin_zip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: asynchronous submission to a job queue, polling until completion, a 20-minute timeout, and the return of a full audit summary. This is valuable context, though it omits error handling and potential side effects like job record persistence.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage instruction, and behavioral details. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, the asynchronous behavior, timeout, and return value. The distinction from sibling tools is also clear, making it complete for the agent to select and use correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond what is already in the schema. It repeats the instruction to provide the path but does not elaborate on engines or file_path beyond the schema definitions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Audit' with a well-defined resource 'WordPress plugin from a local ZIP file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_plugin (which likely audits a plugin by slug) and audit_plugins_bulk (which handles multiple plugins). It also states the required input (path to the zip), eliminating ambiguity.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when you have a local ZIP file to audit, and it instructs the user to provide the path. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for remote plugins or bulk audits), so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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