wp_security_posture

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

With no annotations, this description is the only behavioral signal. It communicates a read-only intent and the data domains that will be reported, but it does not disclose return format, permissions, or any potential side effects. The absence of an output schema increases the burden that this short description only partially meets.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with a scannable colon-separated list. No filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the necessary verb.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, invocation is simple, and the listed categories give a reasonable sense of what will be returned. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the shape or interpretation of the returned values, nor how posture may be represented.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Per the rubric's baseline for zero-param tools, this is adequate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('security posture'), then enumerates the contained data: safe mode, dry run, rate limits, IP allowlist, token age, CORS settings. It is clear and distinct from the sibling getters, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with wp_health_check or wp_site_audit.

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 choose this tool over related diagnostics like wp_health_check, wp_site_audit, or wp_get_settings. No context, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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