wordpress_wp_core_verify_checksums

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what output it returns, or any side effects. The phrase 'detecting tampering' hints at inspection but lacks detail.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and importance. However, it could be slightly restructured to include parameter guidance without adding bloat.

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's critical security nature and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after verification (e.g., list of files, success/failure) or how to interpret results. The single parameter 'site' is not elaborated.

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 schema has one required parameter ('site') with no description. The tool description provides no explanation of what 'site' means (e.g., URL, ID, domain). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 states 'Verify WordPress core files against official checksums' and labels it a 'Critical security tool for detecting tampering or unauthorized modifications.' This provides a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like wordpress_wp_plugin_verify_checksums.

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 implies use for security checks but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wordpress_site_health) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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