Analyze Payload

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes and suggests, but does not disclose internal behavior, return values, side effects, or any prerequisites. This is minimal transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise, but given the need for more detail (especially on behavior and parameters), it is not optimally structured. It is adequate but lacks essential information.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., attack type, strategies) or provide enough context for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 0% coverage (no descriptions on the 'payload' parameter). The description only restates the parameter name, adding no additional meaning about format, encoding, constraints, or expected input characteristics.

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 analyzes a payload to detect attack type and suggest bypass strategies. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'generate-payload' and 'bypass-waf'.

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 a user wants to analyze a payload for attack type and bypass strategies, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it.

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