attack_simulate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the tool's active, potentially intrusive nature ('active HTTP security probes'), lists specific attack types, and includes a critical warning about environment restrictions. It doesn't detail output format or error handling, but covers key behavioral risks adequately.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first explains purpose and scope, the second provides critical usage warning. Every element earns its place, and the warning is appropriately front-loaded for safety.

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?

For a complex, potentially destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is strong: it explains what the tool does, lists probe types, and gives critical environment warnings. It doesn't describe output format or error cases, but given the context, it's sufficiently complete for safe use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (path and baseUrl). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for path or clarifications on baseUrl usage. 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 clearly states the verb ('Run active HTTP security probes') and resource ('against a running Laravel application'), with specific examples of probes (error/debug disclosure, SQL injection, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like blade_scan or code_scan by focusing on active HTTP attacks rather than static analysis.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'only use against local or staging environments — never production.' This clearly defines when to use (non-production) and when not to use (production), addressing critical safety concerns without needing to reference specific alternatives.

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