wordpress_wp_plugin_verify_checksums

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains detection scope ('tampering or corruption') but omits whether it auto-repairs issues, returns file lists, or requires specific capabilities. 'Verify' and 'Detects' imply read-only, but explicit safety disclosure is absent.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, detection capability, and scope limitation. Front-loaded with '[UNIFIED]' tag (likely internal marker) followed by immediate action verb. No redundant phrases.

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?

Adequate for a simple verification tool with no output schema. Covers functional purpose, data source (WP.org), and operational constraints. Missing parameter docs is the primary gap, but given tool simplicity (1 param, no nested objects), description successfully conveys essential 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no description for 'site'). Description provides no semantics for the sole parameter—fails to clarify if 'site' expects a URL, domain, or ID. With single-param tools, minimal documentation is expected but missing here.

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?

States specific action (verify), resource (plugin file integrity), and reference standard (WordPress.org checksums). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings like wordpress_wp_core_verify_checksums by specifying 'plugin' and limits scope to 'WordPress.org repository', clarifying it won't work for premium/custom plugins.

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?

Provides clear constraints on when to use: 'Only works for plugins from WordPress.org repository' implies when NOT to use it (non-repo plugins). Lacks explicit naming of alternatives for unsupported cases, but the limitation is unambiguous.

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