websex_sqlmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: argv tokens are passed directly, shell parsing is never used, and it runs from the selected engagement namespace. It still omits side-effect/intrusiveness context (sqlmap is an active injection tool that may alter target data) and any permission or rate-limit notes.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the second and third sentences mix invocation mechanics with path guidance without clear structure.

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 no explanation, and the description adequately covers the execution model. But with four undocumented parameters and no annotations, gaps remain around stdin, engagement_id validity, and the tool's intrusive nature.

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%, so the description must explain all four parameters, but it never names them explicitly. It only implicitly alludes to arguments ('supplied argv tokens'), engagement_id ('selected engagement namespace'), and working_directory ('relative paths'), and says nothing about the stdin parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Run sqlmap from the WebSex web toolkit.' An agent immediately knows this invokes the sqlmap tool. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like websex_sqli_probe or websex_sqli_time_probe, leaving the agent to infer which SQLi tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the SQLi alternatives in the sibling list. The only usage hints ('use relative paths', argv tokens) describe invocation mechanics rather than tool selection.

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