sqlmap_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes 'Always runs non-interactively (--batch)' and warns that higher risk levels 'may alter data,' adding context beyond the schema. It also explains that higher levels mean more tests and slower execution. However, it does not describe output format or potential side effects like database modification during exploitation, which prevents a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a compact parameter list with explanations, and a final note about non-interactive execution. Every line adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. The list format makes it scannable despite having 13 parameters.

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 tool's complexity (13 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, provides usage examples, and discloses key operational behavior like batch mode and potential data alteration. The only gap is the lack of information about return values or how results are accessed, which is partly mitigated by the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples, ranges, and sqlmap flags. For instance, 'technique: SQL injection techniques — B=Boolean, E=Error, U=Union, S=Stacked, T=Time, Q=Inline' and 'risk: risk level 1-3 (higher = more aggressive, may alter data)' add substantial meaning beyond the raw schema names.

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 opens with 'Automated SQL injection detection and exploitation using sqlmap,' which clearly states the tool's specific verb ('detection and exploitation'), resource ('SQL injection'), and underlying engine ('sqlmap'). This distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools like nmap or nikto, which target different vulnerability classes.

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 SQL injection testing via the first line, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as when a non-invasive scan is required, though the 'may alter data' caveat hints at risk.

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