websex_csrf_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: it actively replays a state-changing request cross-origin against a live session and inspects token/SameSite structure, making clear this is an active, potentially side-effectful probe requiring caller-supplied session state. It omits side-effect/rate-limit caveats, keeping it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the tool's purpose and progressing through the three checks. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly packed for one sentence.

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 no explanation, and the description conveys the core mechanism and the critical session requirement. For a 7-parameter active probe with zero schema coverage and no annotations, though, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation of most parameters.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only session_headers is given meaning ('caller supplies session_headers'); url, body, method, headers, content_type, and engagement_id are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb/resource (CSRF posture probe) and enumerates its three concrete checks: token anatomy, SameSite cookie posture, and foreign-Origin replay. This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like cors_probe, ssrf_probe, and access_bypass_probe without needing to open any schema.

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?

It implies usage context by stating the replay runs 'against a live session (caller supplies session_headers)', which tells the agent a session is a prerequisite. However, it never states when to use this versus cors_probe/race_probe or when it is inapplicable (e.g., no state-changing endpoint), so usage is only implied.

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