wordpress_wp_plugin_verify_checksums

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool detects tampering or corruption and has a repository limitation, but does not mention side effects, performance, or error behavior.

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 relatively concise, consisting of three sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix may be confusing but does not add unnecessary length. It conveys the core purpose without fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain return values or results. It does not. The 'site' parameter is not described. For a simple tool, these omissions leave gaps in completeness.

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 single parameter 'site' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not clarify its meaning, format, or purpose. This leaves the agent without necessary context for proper invocation.

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 plugin file integrity against WordPress.org checksums, detecting tampering or corruption. It distinguishes from siblings like wordpress_wp_core_verify_checksums by specifying 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?

The description mentions it only works for plugins from WordPress.org repository, giving a condition for use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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