websex_idor_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior (three-identity replay and the firing condition), which is valuable, but omits whether it is read-only, that it actively sends requests, request-volume/rate considerations (max_requests defaults to 40), and any authorization requirements for the engagement.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed jargon-heavy phrasing and lack of any structural breakdown make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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. Still, for a 9-parameter tool with nested header objects and zero schema description coverage, the single-sentence description is thin on parameter and behavioral context that an agent needs to invoke it 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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only indirectly implies the url. It never explains the distinction between primary_headers, other_headers, and anon_headers, nor the roles of body, method, mutate_marker, max_requests, or engagement_id.

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?

States a specific technique (object-level authorization probe) and the exact mechanism: replay one object URL as owner, low-privilege user, and anonymous. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling websex_idor_sweep_probe, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left 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?

The detection trigger ('fires on identical cross-identity success or inverted authz') tells the agent what the tool is looking for, which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs the closely related idor_sweep_probe, access_bypass_probe, or bfla_probe, and no stated prerequisites.

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