ssti_scan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the injection of math-evaluation probes ({{7*7}}, ${7*7}), the check for '49' in the response, and detection of template engine error signatures. This provides a clear behavioral model, though it stops short of noting request side-effects or rate limits.

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 two sentences, extremely concise and front-loaded. The first states the high-level purpose, and the second details the detection technique. No filler, repetition, or irrelevant information.

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 scanner with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers core behavior and detection logic. It lacks explicit statements about scope handling or safety, but the parameter schema and output schema fill most gaps.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds general context about injecting probes into request parameters but does not explain individual parameters or their semantics beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as scanning a URL for Server-Side Template Injection, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling vulnerability scanners by naming the exact vulnerability class and describing the detection mechanism.

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 implies usage for SSTI detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sqli_scan or xss_scan. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with other scanners, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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