wordpress_verify_core_files

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It only mentions 'verify...integrity (checksums)', implying a read-only check, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network requests), authorization requirements, or performance impact. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded and clear.

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 simple no-parameter tool, the description is minimal but functional. However, it lacks output description (e.g., returns list of modified files or boolean) and usage context, which could be valuable.

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 coverage is 100% with zero parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verifies WordPress core file integrity using checksums. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from other verification tools like check_updates or scan_permissions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_site_health or scan_permissions. Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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