audit_wordpress_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'chains multiple analysis steps' and 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions,' which provides some behavioral context about workflow integration and state management. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis or makes changes, what permissions are required, whether it's resource-intensive, or what happens to the analysis results. For a complex 7-parameter audit tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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-point-like structure with sections (WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) but is somewhat verbose. Sentences like 'Comprehensive WordPress plugin audit - chains multiple analysis steps for security, performance, dependencies, and code quality' are front-loaded with key information, but the additional sections could be more tightly integrated. Some phrases like 'Perfect for understanding complex code' are somewhat redundant with the purpose statement.

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 audit tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the audit produces (no output schema means the description should indicate the type of results), doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics, and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage despite the comprehensive schema. The workflow tip is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond implying the audit covers 'security, performance, dependencies, and code quality' (which maps to some auditType enum values). It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema.

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 a 'comprehensive WordPress plugin audit' that 'chains multiple analysis steps for security, performance, dependencies, and code quality.' This specifies the verb (audit), resource (WordPress plugin), and scope (multiple analysis areas). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_wordpress_security' or 'wordpress_plugin_readiness' beyond mentioning its comprehensive nature.

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 some implied usage guidance: '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.' This suggests when the tool is appropriate and provides a workflow tip. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'analyze_wordpress_security' or 'security_audit,' nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the workflow suggestion.

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