kali_web_wpscan_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'security scanner' and 'finding vulnerabilities,' which implies a read-only analysis, but it does not specify critical behaviors such as whether the scan is passive or active, potential impact on the target site (e.g., if it triggers alerts), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations and potential security implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core function ('WordPress security scanner'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes, but it avoids redundancy and waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity of a security scanning tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., scan intensity, output format), usage context, and how results are returned. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short, making it inadequate for the tool's scope.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'url' and 'enumerate' are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'vp,vt,u' or typical use cases for parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose as a 'WordPress security scanner for finding vulnerabilities in WordPress sites, themes, and plugins.' It specifies the verb ('scanner for finding vulnerabilities') and resource ('WordPress sites, themes, and plugins'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_web_nikto_scan' or 'kali_web_nuclei_scan', which may also perform web vulnerability scanning, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific contexts, prerequisites (e.g., needing a WordPress site), or exclusions (e.g., not for non-WordPress sites). With many sibling tools for web scanning and exploitation, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without clear direction, resulting in a low score.

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