sqlmap_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job by revealing the gated nature ("GATED — exploitation"), the need for ALLOW_EXPLOITATION, and the blocked result when exploitation is disabled. It also indicates that the target must be in scope, implying a safety boundary. It does not mention potential side effects like payload delivery, but the 'exploitation' label and gating already signal high-impact behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, etc.) and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly verbose—some information is repeated between the initial sentence and the structured block—but every section contributes functional guidance. The length is justified because there are no annotations or schema descriptions to lean on.

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?

Despite no annotations and a minimal schema, the description covers all critical aspects: use case, step-by-step instructions, prerequisites, input/output formats, an example, and related tools. It even explains the return value includes a 'blocked' status. For a tool of this complexity (gated exploitation, four parameters, custom output), this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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. The Args section effectively explains each parameter: target is the URL with parameter and must be in scope, data is an optional POST body, level and risk are described with their sqlmap-specific ranges (1-5 and 1-3). An example call further clarifies usage, providing complete semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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's purpose: "Test a URL/parameter for SQL injection (sqlmap)." The verb 'test' plus the specific resource (URL/parameter) and tool (sqlmap) leaves no ambiguity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on SQL injection exploitation, whereas other tools like nuclei_scan or nikto_scan cover broader vulnerability scanning.

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 explicit usage context: USECASE is "Detect and exploit SQL injection in an authorized web app parameter," and PREREQUISITES clearly state that ALLOW_EXPLOITATION must be true and the target must be authorized and in scope. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or which sibling tools should be chosen for other vulnerability types, only listing RELATED_TOOLS without explanation.

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