websex_traversal_probe

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: depth-varied and encoded prefixes, and a baseline-differential confirmation heuristic. However it says nothing about authorization/engagement scoping, request volume safety (max_requests defaults to 24), or redirect handling.

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-loaded with the technique and resource, with no filler. Every clause – depth-varied prefixes, encoding, baseline confirmation – carries information.

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 are covered, but for a 9-parameter, 0%-coverage injection tool the description is too thin. It never defines engagement_id, the injection point (parameter), or the request-shaping fields, which an agent needs in order to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% across 9 parameters. The description touches only the target file and the traversal-prefix concept, leaving url, parameter, method, headers, body, engagement_id, max_requests and follow_redirects entirely unexplained beyond their bare titles, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific technique (path traversal / LFI), a concrete target (a system file), and the method used (depth-varied and encoded traversal prefixes). It is far more specific than a tautology, but it never names its nearest sibling (websex_dotdotpwn) or otherwise explicitly distinguishes itself within the large probe family.

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 methodology and the confirmation criterion ('target-file content absent from baseline') imply this is the tool for differential LFI verification rather than generic fuzzing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative (e.g. dotdotpwn) guidance.

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