auth_test_oauth_redirect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention that this is a security testing tool that sends network requests to the target, which could be intrusive or require authorization. It also doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, whether it makes multiple requests, or the impact on the target. The description only lists techniques without behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a list of techniques. It's well-structured with a list, making it easy to scan. No redundant information, each line adds value. It earns a 4 for efficiency and clarity, though it could be slightly more detailed on usage.

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?

Given the complexity (a security tool that makes network requests), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., authorization to test), potential side effects (e.g., sending requests to targets), or what constitutes a 'positive' result. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't provide enough behavioral context for an agent to safely and effectively use the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema: the schema already explains 'authorize_url', 'redirect_uri', and 'state'. However, the description's list of tests (path traversal, etc.) gives some context on how redirect_uri is used, which adds minimal value.

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 the tool tests OAuth redirect_uri for open redirect and CSRF vulnerabilities, and it lists specific bypass techniques tested. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_redirect_scan (which likely tests general open redirects) and auth_test_jwt (which tests JWTs). The verb is specific and the resource is explicit.

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 provides a clear sense of what the tool does and lists the techniques it covers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that open_redirect_scan might be for simpler open redirect tests, or that this tool is specifically for OAuth flows. There's no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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