tools_wpscan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, or safety (e.g., whether scanning is destructive). It only lists parameters without addressing behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clean list of parameters. No redundant or irrelevant information, and it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

While all parameters are described, the description omits details about the output format (despite an existing output schema) and fails to mention important context like whether the tool is read-only, if it requires a running WordPress instance, or any prerequisites. This leaves gaps for an agent to safely invoke it.

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, so the description provides essential meaning for all five parameters. It explains each parameter clearly (e.g., 'url: Target WordPress URL') and offers examples for 'enumerate,' adding value beyond the raw 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 'Execute WPScan WordPress vulnerability scanner,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools by focusing on WordPress, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tools_nmap or tools_nikto. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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