websex_ssrf_probe

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses methodology: it explains the optional out-of-band canary for content-read proof, metadata markers, differential testing, and blind timing fallback. However, it omits critical behavioral traits such as whether requests are safe, read-only, require specific permissions, possible rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a high-risk probe.

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 front-loads the tool purpose and technique list without filler, making it efficient. However, the heavy technical jargon might benefit from slight restructuring for readability, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given high complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is insufficient. It lacks usage guidance, parameter explanations, and safety context, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool beyond recognizing its SSRF focus.

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% and there are 9 parameters, yet the description only elaborates on oob_canary_host (noting webhook.site usage). The other eight parameters—engagement_id, url, parameter, body, method, headers, max_requests, follow_redirects—receive no semantic explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 tool type (SSRF probe) and enumerates its probing techniques: content-read proof via oob_canary_host, metadata markers, internal-vs-dead-host differential, and blind timing fallback. This clearly distinguishes it from other probe siblings like sqli_probe or cmdi_probe. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from generic HTTP tools such as websex_http_request.

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 description implies SSRF testing but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as engagement_id or required authorization. An agent must infer that this tool is for SSRF assessment rather than being routed clearly.

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