find_sql_injection

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does note the heuristic nature with 'Possible' and the specific detection pattern, which adds some transparency. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, return format, or any other behavioral nuances beyond the heuristic flag.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and detection mechanism, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description lacks information about the output format (e.g., list of locations), the need for the project to be loaded, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the tool's execution context incomplete.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'name' as 'Name or path of the loaded project', giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 identifies the tool's function: detecting possible SQL injection via query/execute calls with interpolated template literals or string concatenation. It distinguishes this from sibling vulnerability scanners like find_command_injection and find_xss_vectors by specifying SQL injection specifically. The lack of an explicit verb like 'detect' is mitigated by the tool name, so the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_xss_vectors or find_command_injection. It also does not mention prerequisites like needing a loaded project, which would be important for usage.

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