websex_race_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 helpfully discloses the detection heuristic ('fires when more than one request succeeds where the flow allows 1') and the concurrency model, but it never states that this is a live, potentially state-mutating attack that sends real concurrent requests, nor any auth/side-effect/rate considerations.

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 pair, front-loaded with the technique name and detection criterion, with no filler. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the caller-obligation clause 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 a live exploitation probe with 8 params, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the missing parameter semantics and unstated destructive/live-fire nature leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 gestures at 'rounds' and the worker count ('N simultaneous requests per round'), but says nothing about success_statuses, method, body, headers, or engagement_id, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 (race condition) and the exact mechanism: N simultaneous requests per round against a single-use flow, firing when more than one succeeds where only one should. This is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with adjacent probe siblings (logic_probe, idor_probe, http_intruder), so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 phrase 'against a single-use flow' and 'Caller supplies the exact legitimate request' imply the precondition for use, which is a useful cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative tools (e.g. http_repeater or http_intruder for sequential replay, logic_probe for non-concurrent logic flaws), 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.