Retrieves a specific prompt injection attack payload by its ID, such as DE-001 or JB-001, so security researchers can test and analyze AI defenses.
根据载荷ID获取特定攻击载荷
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload_id | Yes | 载荷ID（如：DE-001, RP-002, JB-001） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a payload but does not describe what happens if the ID is not found, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The behavioral traits are largely unspecified.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information: the action (获取) and the resource (攻击载荷). It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool with zero waste.
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 that the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior (e.g., error handling, return format). It is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly without assumptions, especially regarding what happens on missing IDs or authentication requirements.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the payload_id parameter, including examples. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 '根据载荷ID获取特定攻击载荷' clearly states a specific verb (获取) and resource (攻击载荷) with the scope of retrieving by ID. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_attack_categories or search_payloads by its ID-based lookup. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_payloads_by_category, leaving minor ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say to use this when a specific payload ID is known, as opposed to get_payloads_by_category or search_payloads. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.