websex_open_redirect_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 usefully explains the attack matrix, that confirmation requires Location/refresh pointing at the canary host, and that javascript:/data: Location values are flagged. However, it omits operational traits such as request volume, redirect-following behavior, and authentication or engagement requirements.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the vulnerability and technique, and uses only two sentences with no filler. The parenthetical technique list is dense but each item earns its place by scoping the probe's matrix.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more than it does. It covers the attack concept and confirmation logic, but not how to invoke the tool or what the parameters control. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but input semantics and usage context remain missing.

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. It does not define any input parameter (url, parameter, body, method, headers, max_requests, engagement_id, follow_redirects) or map the technique list to the inputs an agent must supply.

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 action (probe) and vulnerability resource (open redirect), and scopes the technique matrix and confirmation signal. The vulnerability class distinguishes it from the many sibling probes such as traversal, SSRF, and host-header probes.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and vulnerability class, but the description never states when to choose this over other redirect-related or generic HTTP tools. It also does not mention prerequisites like an engagement context or target parameter suitability.

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