wordpress_scan_permissions

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'scan' suggests a read-only operation, it does not explicitly state that it will not modify permissions, nor does it describe the output format or whether it simply returns a pass/fail report. The absence of any detail about safety or side effects leaves the agent guessing.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is all the agent has. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., a report, a list of issues, a boolean), whether it is safe to run frequently, and what specific checks it performs. The tool is simple in terms of parameters, but the security-related purpose creates a need for more behavioral context.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The input schema is empty, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable for a no-parameter tool. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and no additional explanation is needed.

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 ('Scan') and resource ('file and directory permissions') with a clear objective ('for security issues'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files or file_info, which do not focus on security scanning.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical security audit scenarios, nor does it explicitly state that it is read-only or that it should be used before making permission changes. The description implies usage but lacks exclusionary or contextual guidance.

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