Detect WordPress installations

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

The description goes beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing that a successful response only means the scan was queued, not completed. This is important behavioral context that prevents the agent from misinterpreting the response. It could add more detail about scan duration or side effects, but for a queued background operation this is sufficient.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second explains the asynchronous behavior and follow-up action. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides the necessary context for a background-scan trigger: what it does, that it is async, and how to retrieve results. With only one parameter and no output schema, this is reasonably complete. It could be improved by clarifying the username parameter, but the overall flow is understandable.

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 only parameter, username, has a schema description of 'username parameter', which is tautological and provides no real semantic meaning. The tool description also does not explain what username refers to or how it relates to 'the account.' Although schema coverage is technically 100%, the quality of that coverage is negligible, so the description fails to add meaningful parameter guidance.

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 action: 'Trigger a background scan to detect WordPress installations for the account.' It names a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the asynchronous nature distinguishes it from listing or checking installations. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like hosting_listWordPressInstallationsV1, so the differentiation is implicit rather than named.

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 gives clear usage context by stating the operation is asynchronous and instructing the agent to 'Poll GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations' to retrieve results. This provides a concrete follow-up action. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, but the polling guidance is strong enough for correct invocation.

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