wpscan_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral constraints: 75 daily API requests with free token, target must be in allowed_hosts, and a timeout parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the scan is non-destructive or could generate network traffic against the target, which might be relevant for authorization. It adds some useful context but not a complete behavioral profile.

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 Args, Returns, and Note sections, and the main purpose is stated in the first sentence. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence delivers useful information about parameters, prerequisites, or output. No filler or redundant content.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to invoke each parameter, what it returns, and important notes about API token and target authorization. It does not discuss potential side effects or examples of full usage, but with an output schema present this is sufficient. The note about allowed_hosts is a critical operational context.

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 0%, yet the description's Args section fully explains every parameter: url with example, enumerate with specific option abbreviations, api_token with recommendation, threads with default/max, and timeout with default behavior. This entirely compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing actionable semantics for each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a WordPress site for vulnerabilities, plugins, themes, and users using WPScan.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling scanners like nikto_scan or nuclei_scan which target broader web infrastructure. The enumeration options further clarify its exact purpose.

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 clear contextual guidance: prerequisites like the WPScan API token and the requirement that the target be in tengu.toml allowed_hosts. It implies use for WordPress targets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to. The context is clear enough to make appropriate use decisions, though exclusions are not directly stated.

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