intruder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is an active replay/enumeration operation and that it is intentionally bounded to a small payload list. However, it does not explicitly note whether it sends live network requests, what authorization is needed, or any other side effects beyond replaying the request.

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 main behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by a one-line usage boundary and a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 is a focused active-replay operation with three well-documented parameters and an output schema present. The description covers its purpose, scope, parameter semantics, and usage constraints without needing to detail return values. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 inline Args section is essential. It explains each parameter clearly, adds a practical tip for marker ('put it in the URL/body first'), and provides a concrete example for payloads_json, making the parameters immediately usable.

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 specifies the tool's function: 'Replay a logged request substituting `marker` with each payload' and brands it as 'Intruder-lite'. It includes a concrete use case ('enumeration/IDOR/auth checks') and a boundary ('not stress testing'), distinguishing it from broader or stress-testing tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('for enumeration/IDOR/auth checks') and when not to use it ('not stress testing'). However, it does not name a specific alternative for stress testing or general replay, so the guidance is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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