prufgate_bola_check

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world, idempotent behavior. The description adds that an active two-token probe against a live URL is gated on target_url — meaningful context about outbound network activity — but says nothing about what gets reported, credentials required for the two tokens, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this partial addition earns a 3.

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 tight clauses with no filler, and the conditional probe behavior is stated directly. The leading 'Engine 5:' label is the only noise, contributing nothing an agent can act on.

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?

For a read-only scanner with no output schema, the description should convey what findings look like or what the check surface covers. It covers the gating condition but leaves the agent unsure whether this is a static repo scan, a live probe, or both, and what result to expect.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, and the description only restates the target_url gating condition verbatim from the schema. No added syntax, format, or example information beyond structured fields.

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?

It names the resource being checked (routes and queries lacking auth or tenant scoping), which is specific, but there is no verb describing the action — is it a scan, a report, a probe? 'Engine 5' is opaque internal jargon that does not identify the operation, so an agent must infer it is the BOLA-specific check from the tool name alone.

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 clause 'the live two-token probe runs only when target_url is set' gives one useful conditional, implying the workspace scan is the default and the live probe is opt-in. However, nothing says when to choose this over prufgate_fast_scan, prufgate_full_scan, or prufgate_contract_check, all of which likely overlap in security-scan territory.

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