websex_xss_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits — canary injection, the five reflection-context classes, encoding state, and that output is raw evidence snippets rather than inferred payloads. However it never states request volume limits (max_requests is exposed but unexplained), auth/session needs, or that the required engagement_id scopes the activity, and it does not clarify whether any state is mutated on the target.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the differentiator ('exact snippets, not payload guesses'). No filler and nothing that could be dropped without losing meaning.

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 not be described, and the description does cover the analysis semantics well. But for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the missing engagement scoping, request-budget behavior, and parameter roles leave the definition short of what an agent needs to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the schema contributes nothing. The description mentions 'parameters' and, implicitly, a target URL, but says nothing about method, body, headers, max_requests, follow_redirects, or the required engagement_id, leaving most inputs undocumented.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: it injects canaries into parameters and classifies reflection context across five concrete context types, then reports CSP/cookie posture. That is far more precise than sibling scanner names like websex_dalfox or websex_xsser, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'probe'. There is no statement of when to reach for this over websex_xsser, websex_dalfox, websex_jaeles, or the other HTTP probing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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