websex_sqli_time_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 implies active requests to a target with sleep payloads but does not state authorization requirements, that the target will actually execute SLEEP/WAITFOR calls, or how the median ratio is classified as positive.

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?

One dense sentence with no waste, front-loaded on the technique. Slight telegraphic style ("N baseline vs N sleep-payload samples") risks ambiguity, hence not a 5.

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 9-parameter injection tool with no annotations and 0% param coverage, the description omits how evidence is judged, what a positive/negative looks like, and how to configure the payload probe. The output schema covers returns, but the invocation surface remains underexplained.

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, with only titles and defaults. The description mentions N samples and a delay but does not map these to the 'samples' or 'delay_seconds' parameters, nor explain 'parameter', 'engagement_id', redirects, or headers.

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 (time-based SQLi oracle) and the mechanism (N baseline vs N sleep-payload samples, median ratio comparison across named dialects). An agent can distinguish this from websex_sqli_probe and websex_sqlmap without opening a schema.

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?

No statement of when to prefer this over websex_sqli_probe, websex_sqlmap, or websex_race_probe, and no guidance on exclusion conditions (e.g., when timing noise makes it unreliable). The dialect list implies scope but not selection criteria.

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