sqlmap_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does mention always using --batch, requiring a workspace output directory, and target validation, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose the potentially destructive or risky nature of actions like dump and os_cmd, nor does it explain any side effects or security implications.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with labeled sections: Purpose, Constraints, and Example. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. The example adds clarity without unnecessary length.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 17 parameters and no annotations. The description provides an example, action list, and basic constraints, but it lacks explanations of what each action does, prerequisites, or guidance on unsafe operations. It is enough for a basic understanding but insufficient for fully informed use of all capabilities.

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 compensate, but it only partially does so. It lists several parameters supported by scan_custom (method, data, cookies, level, risk, techniques, tamper, proxy, forms) and provides an example, yet it omits explanations for many parameters such as db, table, command, enum_what, extra_args, and include_raw. The description adds some value but falls short for a 17-parameter tool.

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 clearly states 'Run sqlmap' with a specific list of actions (scan_basic, scan_custom, enumerate, dump, os_cmd), providing a precise verb+resource combination. The tool's name and description distinguish it from siblings like nmap_scan or metasploit_run_module, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool through its action list, but it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives or exclude other use cases. It mentions constraints (requires target_url and validation) and always using --batch, which gives some context, but no clear 'when to use' guidance is provided.

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