wpscan_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs wpscan, returns a structured result dict, and uses an optional API token. It could be more explicit about network behavior or potential impact, but the command and output structure are clear.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (TOOL_NAME, USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION, EXAMPLES, PREREQUISITES, RELATED_TOOLS, Args). Every section adds value without unnecessary repetition, making it both thorough and efficient.

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 has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, step-by-step instructions, input/output formats, examples, and related tools. This provides all context an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'target (WordPress URL)', 'enumerate (wpscan --enumerate arg, e.g. "vp,vt,u")', and 'api_token (optional WPScan API token)'. Examples and defaults are also provided.

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 scans WordPress sites for vulnerabilities using wpscan, with the use case 'Enumerate vulnerable plugins/themes/users on an in-scope WordPress site'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuclei_scan or dir_bruteforce.

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 explicit instructions ('Ensure host is in scope, Provide the site URL, Optionally set enumerate options/API token'), prerequisites ('Host authorized and in scope'), and related tools (nuclei_scan, dir_bruteforce). This clearly guides when and how to use the tool.

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