Audit site security

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: probes as an anonymous visitor, lists specific techniques, inspects via a companion plugin, works partially without it, reports skipped items, and caps downloads to a few KB. This far exceeds what annotations convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: summary, external probes, internal checks, version database, partial-operation behavior, and safety limit. The most important facts (read-only, score, findings) are front-loaded, and the long list of probes is organized and relevant.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return value shape (score, prioritized findings, evidence, fix, skipped items), operational limits (max lookups, download cap), prerequisites (companion plugin optional), and external calls. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters, though it does enrich the overall context of how the audit operates. No compensation needed since the schema fully documents each parameter.

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 a specific action (read-only security review) on a specific resource (WordPress site) with a concrete output (0-100 score, prioritized findings with evidence and fix). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_content or check_accessibility by focusing on site-wide security posture.

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 context that this is an external/internal security audit and describes its scope in detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous among the sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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