websex_header_injection_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral value by disclosing the detection method (compare against a baseline response and look for newly appearing headers or Set-Cookie), but it omits whether the tool mutates state, whether it requires an established session/engagement, and any request-volume or rate-limit behavior for an active injection probe.

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 that states the technique first and the confirmation signal second, with no filler. It is efficient, though the confirmation clause could be terser without losing meaning.

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, but for a 7-parameter active probe with zero schema documentation the description should cover parameter roles and operational prerequisites. It covers neither, so an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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 7 parameters, and the description explains none of them. The phrase 'encoded CR/LF variants' hints at how the injection is delivered but does not clarify what 'parameter' means, how method/body/headers are used, or the role of max_requests, leaving the schema to be guessed at.

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 the specific vulnerability class (CRLF / response splitting via encoded CR/LF variants) and states the confirmation condition, so an agent knows exactly what this probe tests. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with adjacent siblings such as host_header_probe or access_bypass_probe, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a baseline request must exist or headers must be reflected), and no named alternatives. The only implied usage is that this is a web header-injection probe, which the name already conveys.

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