websex_host_header_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 disclose the detection model beyond a bare label — attacker-supplied Host/XFH, absolute-URL rebuilding, and an optional password-reset response mode — but says nothing about what requests are issued, whether the target is actively mutated, required authorization, or side effects.

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 compact sentence with the tested condition front-loaded and zero filler. It is dense to the point of being telegraphic, but nothing wastes space.

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?

For a six-parameter active probe with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains what is sent, how success is recognized, or how the optional reset mode is triggered. The existence of an output schema spares it from explaining return values, but parameter and usage gaps remain.

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% for six parameters. The description obliquely explains evil_host ('attacker host') and the optional password-reset path (mapping to password_reset_shape/reset_body), but headers, url, and engagement_id are left entirely to bare schema names, so most parameters gain no meaning from the text.

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 test target (Host / X-Forwarded-Host trust) and the observable it checks — whether absolute URLs or password-reset responses rebuild from an attacker-controlled host. That is far more concrete than a generic 'probe', though it is phrased as a terse colon-fragment with no verb and does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like websex_header_injection_probe or websex_ssrf_probe.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative sibling probes the agent might pick instead. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tested condition.

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