scan_sql_injection_sqlmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that maximum level can modify data and requires explicit authorization, and it mandates starting at the lowest level. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the key destructive behavior is well flagged.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, when-to-use, and escalation guidance are clearly separated. Every sentence contributes operational value with no filler.

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 scanning tool, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and safe escalation, while the output schema handles return values. It could mention prerequisites like target reachability or broader authorization context, but the core operational guidance is solid.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping risk/level combinations to conservative, moderate, and maximum escalation levels, and by warning that risk=3 can modify data—information not present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Testa SQL Injection usando SQLMap', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_xss_dalfox and scan_vulnerabilidades_nikto by focusing on SQLMap and SQL injection.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the URL contains GET/POST parameters or when Nikto reports possible SQLi. It also provides mandatory escalation levels, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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