scan_xmlrpc_wordpress

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only or potentially destructive. The description is silent on what actions it performs beyond testing attack vectors, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that clearly convey the purpose and usage condition. It does not include extraneous information, and the structure is direct and easy to scan.

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?

The description provides enough context for when to use the tool (based on reports from WPScan/Nikto) and what it does, but it lacks information on the expected output or any side effects. Since no output schema is given, the user does not know what the tool returns, and there is no mention of prerequisites or post-conditions. This leaves some gaps for complete understanding.

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 schema provides a description for target_url with an example, but it does not clarify whether the URL should include the full path to xmlrpc.php or just the base URL. The example shows a base URL without a path, but the tool name suggests the endpoint is fixed. The description lacks details on required format or constraints, making it ambiguous.

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 that the tool tests the WordPress xmlrpc.php endpoint for attack vectors, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that scan other aspects. The verb 'testa' and the object 'xmlrpc.php' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use quando WPScan ou Nikto reportar xmlrpc.php acessível.' This provides a concrete trigger condition and implies it is a follow-up to those tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the condition is clear enough to guide usage.

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