zerodom_compare_identities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs on the real rendered session, that it iterates over identities, that it reports status and size per response, and that byte-identical responses indicate a potential IDOR. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether requests are actually sent to the target, whether cookies are modified) or rate-limit/auth implications, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism and the detection criterion, and the third gives the WAF/login-wall context. Every sentence earns its place, and the bolded IDOR criterion is a useful emphasis.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and 4 parameters, one required. The description explains the main behavior, the identity default, and the detection criterion. It does not describe the output format, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden. It also doesn't mention whether the tool mutates state or requires specific setup, but for a read-oriented comparison tool this is a minor gap.

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. It explains the meaning of `identities` (default: live session plus every registered one) and `method`/`url` (sent through each identity). It does not explain `body` in detail, but the schema's default and type are self-explanatory. The description adds meaningful semantics for the key parameters, though it could be more explicit about `body`.

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 opens with a crisp verb+resource statement: 'Fetch one URL as each identity and diff — the cross-tenant IDOR check.' It then explains the mechanism (sends method/url through every identity) and the detection criterion (byte-identical response on a per-user resource = cross-tenant IDOR). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling browser-automation tools, none of which perform multi-identity comparison.

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 states when to use it: as a cross-tenant IDOR check, and notes it runs on the real rendered session so it works where a plain HTTP fetch would hit a WAF or login wall. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the IDOR framing and the rendered-session advantage give an agent clear context for selecting it over other tools.

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