websex_ssti_probe

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the probing method ('inert math canaries') and a confidence characteristic ('High-confidence only on evaluated literals'), which are useful. However, it omits operational details such as request volume, auth requirements, potential side effects, and what happens on non-evaluated responses, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core technique and follows with the confidence caveat, making it easy to scan and extract the key idea.

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 probe tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is too thin. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the agent receives no guidance on parameter usage, prerequisites, or when this tool is preferable to sibling probes, making correct invocation difficult.

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% for all 8 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level information whatsoever. It does not explain url, parameter, engagement_id, method, body, headers, max_requests, or follow_redirects, so it fails entirely to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description names a specific security technique: 'Server-side template injection via inert math canaries ({{7*74311}} family) with engine identification from error fingerprints.' This tells the agent it probes for SSTI using a particular payload family and attempts engine fingerprinting. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling probes (e.g., sqli_probe, cmdi_probe), but the technique and name make the purpose clear.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternative tools. The only guidance-like statement is a confidence caveat ('High-confidence only on evaluated literals'), which describes result reliability rather than when to select this tool.

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