analyze_wordpress_security

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions,' hinting at state retention, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only/destructive, performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For a complex 12-parameter tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 uses a bullet-like structure with sections (DESCRIPTION, WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES), which is somewhat organized but not optimally front-loaded. Some sentences like 'Perfect for understanding complex code' are vague and don't earn their place efficiently. It could be more streamlined for a tool with rich schema documentation.

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 high complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: no explanation of return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 'SAVES' hint is insufficient for a tool that likely produces detailed security reports. With no output schema, the description should compensate more.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying analysis of 'plugins, themes, and core' (related to 'wpType') and 'OWASP' (related to 'analysisType' and 'includeOwaspTop10'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs 'WordPress security analysis for plugins, themes, and core implementations with OWASP and WordPress-specific vulnerability detection,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_code_quality' or 'security_audit' by specifying WordPress and OWASP focus, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'audit_wordpress_plugin' or 'audit_wordpress_theme' beyond mentioning broader scope.

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 implied usage context with 'WORKFLOW: Perfect for understanding complex code, identifying issues, and technical debt assessment' and 'TIP: Use Desktop Commander to read files, then pass content here for analysis,' suggesting it's for post-file-reading analysis. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'audit_wordpress_plugin' or 'analyze_single_file,' and no exclusions are stated.

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