oob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool is for 'detection' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or what side effects (e.g., network calls, state changes) occur. The multi-step workflow is only referenced via external docs, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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: one for purpose and one pointing to further docs. It is extremely concise with no fluff, front-loading the core concept.

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 of OOB detection (register/send/poll workflow) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the workflow steps, return behavior, or error handling, relying entirely on external documentation.

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%, with each parameter described (e.g., token override, action enum, server URL, correlation ID for poll/deregister). The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond referencing the workflow. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema handles parameter explanation.

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's purpose: 'Out-of-Band interaction detection via Interactsh for blind vulnerability testing.' This specifies a verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from direct testing tools like 'send' or 'fetch', which lack OOB capabilities.

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 references 'rqwstr_docs(topic="oob")' for the register/send/poll workflow, hinting at a multi-step process, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send' or 'intruder'. It lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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