wordpress_scan_permissions

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. It states the tool scans for security issues, implying a read-only analysis without modification, but doesn't specify if it requires admin permissions, how it reports findings (e.g., output format), or any performance impacts. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 a single, clear sentence: 'Scan file and directory permissions for security issues.' It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does but lacks details on behavior and output. For a security scanning tool, more context on what constitutes 'security issues' or how results are presented would be helpful, but the simplicity of the tool (0 params) makes the description minimally viable. It's complete enough for basic understanding but could be enhanced with behavioral details.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Scan file and directory permissions for security issues.' It specifies the action (scan), target (file and directory permissions), and objective (security issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'wordpress_file_info' or 'wordpress_verify_core_files,' which might also involve file analysis, though the security focus is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to siblings such as 'wordpress_get_site_health' or 'wordpress_verify_core_files,' which might overlap in security checks. Without such context, an agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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