wpscan_lookup_vuln

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'lookup,' implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., ID not found), or whether the tool is destructive. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about the return value, error behavior on invalid IDs, or any prerequisites. This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides the expected format 'WPScan ID (e.g., WPVDB-ID-12345)' for the wpvdbId parameter. This adds meaning beyond the schema's simple string type, helping the agent understand the exact input format.

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's purpose: lookup a vulnerability by its WPScan ID. It specifies the action (lookup), the resource (vulnerability), and the identifier format with an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that look up cores, plugins, or themes.

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 implies usage when you have a WPScan vulnerability ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to use for vulnerabilities vs. other WPScan entities). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exceptions.

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