wordpress_verify_core_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'verify'), potential side effects (e.g., logging or alerts), performance impact, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('verify WordPress core file integrity') with a clarifying detail ('checksums'). There is zero waste, no repetition, and it's structured for quick comprehension, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose clearly but lacks context on behavior, output, or integration with other tools. For a verification tool, more details on what 'integrity' entails or result interpretation would enhance completeness, making it just viable.

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 no parameter info is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could hint at implicit inputs (e.g., file paths or versions). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids redundancy while being complete for this aspect.

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 action ('verify') and resource ('WordPress core file integrity'), specifying it uses checksums. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_file_info' or 'wordpress_get_system_info' by focusing on integrity verification rather than general info retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'wordpress_check_updates' for core updates), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after updates or security checks), exclusions (e.g., not for plugin files), or recommend other tools like 'wordpress_check_updates' for version checks. The description is standalone without context for selection.

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