websex_access_bypass_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the confirmation heuristic ('status flip away from the block page'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about request volume/noise (max_requests defaults to 40), auth requirements, or whether follow_redirects affects interpretation.

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?

Two compact sentences: technique inventory first, then the success criterion. Dense and front-loaded with essentially no filler, though the comma-separated technique list is somewhat terse rather than structured.

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 output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the technique scope is covered. However, for an 8-parameter active-probing tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, key operational details (request budget, redirect handling, engagement scoping) are missing.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It implicitly maps to method (method sweep), headers (forwarding/origin headers), and extra_paths (path-shape mutations), but leaves body, max_requests, follow_redirects, and engagement_id entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific capability (401/403/405 bypass probing) and enumerates the exact technique classes it performs, so an agent can distinguish it from narrower siblings like websex_host_header_probe or websex_traversal_probe. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 trigger condition is implied by '401/403/405' (use it when you encounter block responses), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternative tools for adjacent cases like host-header or path traversal. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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