search_techniques

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, authentication requirements, or output structure. It only states the search scope without additional 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second explains usage. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no wasted words.

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 presence of sibling tools and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks information about the output format or result structure, which would be helpful since no output schema is provided.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example queries (e.g., 'XSS WAF bypass') and contextualizing the query parameter with terms like 'techniques, payloads, and methodologies'. However, it does not add detail for the source or maxResults parameters beyond the schema.

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 searches a bug bounty knowledge base for techniques, payloads, and methodologies, with specific examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on general search across the entire knowledge base, as opposed to more specific tools like get_payloads or search_wordlists.

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 tells the agent to use this tool to find information about vulnerability types and attack techniques, providing clear context. Although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the use case is well-defined and implicitly differentiates from siblings.

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