interactsh_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: spawning a detached process, capturing the URL, persisting a session descriptor, and returning a token. It does not detail cleanup, rate limits, or error handling, but covers the main operation sufficiently.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, return value, and 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 (spawning a CLI, persisting state, returning a token), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, parameters, and return type. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of RegisterReport with callback_url and token is helpful. Missing error conditions or prerequisites, but adequate overall.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters (server and timeout) with their purposes and defaults, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 registers a callback URL via interactsh-client, naming the verb and resource. It hints at the workflow by mentioning the returned token pairs with interactsh_poll, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like interactsh_poll or interactsh_stop.

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 clear context by stating the token pairs with interactsh_poll, implying the sequential use of register then poll. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given, but the workflow hint is valuable.

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