websex_logic_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses payload classes and the fire condition, which is useful, but omits whether the 'patches' mutate server state, any authorization/scope requirement, rate-limit or request-budget behavior, and the safety profile of a tool that can issue up to 28 requests with modified values.

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 no filler and the payload taxonomy front-loaded before the detection signal. It reads as telegraphic rather than padded, though the semicolon-clause style is slightly compressed.

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 an 8-parameter mutation-capable probe with no annotations, the description explains the probe logic but leaves parameter usage and safety/behavioral context to inference. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the rest of the obligation is unmet.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at base_body and fields ('fields present in the base body') but says nothing about url, method, headers, content_type, 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 resource (business logic values) and the exact payload classes it injects (negative/zero/overflow/discount/status-forced), plus the detection condition 'fires when illegal values are accepted and reflected'. This differentiates it from injection probes like sqli_probe or cmdi_probe, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Only an implicit prerequisite is given ('against fields present in the base body'), implying a base_body/fields must be supplied. There is no statement of when to choose this over mass_assignment_probe, api_fuzz, or http_intruder, nor any exclusions.

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