websex_cmdi_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does reasonably well: it discloses the detection method (per-separator echo canaries), the time-based sleep fallback with sampled medians, and the confirmation criteria (canary output or reproducible delay). It does not state intrusiveness, target impact, or auth requirements, but the technique disclosure is substantive.

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 dense sentences are front-loaded with the primary technique and its fallback, with no filler. Efficient, though the telegraphic style assumes reader familiarity with canary/median terminology.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter active security probe with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves parameters, engagement scoping, and safety/rate context entirely unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing explains url, parameter, engagement_id, method, body, headers, max_requests, or follow_redirects; the mention of separators and medians is technique, not parameter meaning.

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 vulnerability class ('Command injection') and the probe technique, which distinguishes it from siblings like websex_sqli_probe and websex_ssti_probe. It stops short of an explicit verb+resource framing, but an agent can tell what the tool targets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this probe over alternatives (e.g. websex_sqli_time_probe, websex_http_request, websex_http_repeater) or prerequisites such as an existing engagement. The detection methodology is described, but that is how it works, not when to use it.

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