wpscan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool enumerates components and checks CVEs, and even specifies the output structure (version, vulnerable plugins/themes, usernames). It doesn't mention potential network side effects like WAF alerts, but the read-only scanning nature is strongly implied by 'scanner'.

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?

Three concise sentences: what it does, when to use it, and what output to expect. Every sentence earns its place and the critical usage caveat is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 network scanner with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision criteria: purpose, usage prerequisite, and return value. It doesn't explain scan speed or block/rate-limit likelihood, but these are minor given the tool's simple invocation and clearly documented output.

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 both parameters with examples. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only reinforces the overall scanning purpose.

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 opens with 'Dedicated WordPress security scanner' and enumerates exactly what it does: finds plugins, themes, users, and vulnerabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nikto or gobuster, which are generic web/enumeration scanners.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use ONLY when the target is confirmed to be WordPress (verify with whatweb first)' – giving both a strict condition and the correct sibling tool to use beforehand. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select wpscan over alternatives.

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