websex_cors_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it fires both actual and preflight requests, cycles a ladder of origin types, and classifies based on ACAO reflection combined with credentials. That is meaningful method context, but it omits whether requests are sent to the live target, what the side effects are, and any rate/safety constraints.

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?

A single dense sentence with the technique front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic in places, but every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the invocation surface largely undocumented and gives no safety or prerequisite context.

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 six parameters, so the schema adds nothing and the description must compensate. It only indirectly touches include_credentials ("classification depends on ACAO reflection WITH credentials") while url, method, headers, body, and engagement_id remain 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 technique (CORS origin ladder) and the exact origin classes tested (evil/null/suffix/prefix) on both actual and preflight requests, which is enough to distinguish it from generic request tools like websex_http_request. It is clear but assumes CORS fluency, and it never explicitly names a sibling it replaces.

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 statement of when to use this probe versus alternatives such as websex_http_request, websex_csrf_probe, or websex_host_header_probe, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the technique described.

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