detect_framework_violations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It gives examples of functions detected (add_action, etc.) and hints at the framework vs raw comparison, but doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately provides concrete examples. Every sentence is valuable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and gives examples of what it finds. It could mention the output format or scope, but remains complete enough for an agent to select this tool.

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 only parameter 'path' has schema description 'Absolute path to the plugin root' and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond that, so 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 detects raw WordPress functions like add_action, register_post_type, and wp_enqueue_script that should use framework abstractions. It specifies the verb 'detect' and resource 'code that uses raw WordPress functions', and distinguishes from sibling tools (many are generators).

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 vs alternatives like detect_incomplete_implementations or inspection tools. Usage is implied from the description (use to find raw WordPress function calls), but no when-not-to-use or context is provided.

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