idor_fuzz_roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool sends the same request with each auth context and compares responses to detect bypass, which is core behavior. However, it does not describe output format, response-comparison criteria, side effects such as request volume, or any rate-limiting or scoping behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, and every sentence contributes value. It names the class, explains the mechanism, and identifies the vulnerability being tested without unnecessary filler.

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 core use case and mechanism are clear, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. Optional parameters like candidate_ids, scope_exclude, scope_include, and role_hierarchy are schema-documented but not tied into the narrative, so the description is complete for the main workflow but not exhaustive.

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 schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about role-based comparison and privilege escalation, but it does not add meaningful syntax or usage details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action: test the same resource with different auth contexts and compare responses to detect cross-role access control bypass. It explicitly labels this as the 'vertical BOLA / privilege-escalation test,' which clearly distinguishes it from horizontal BOLA fuzzing siblings like idor_fuzz.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: when you want to verify whether a lower-privilege user can access a higher-privilege resource. It does not explicitly name idor_fuzz or idor_fuzz_url as alternatives, but the vertical-vs-horizontal distinction implies the appropriate usage boundary.

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