testar_upload_arquivo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool creates a PHP file on the target server, notes that it is innocuous and non-destructive, and explicitly warns about authorization. This goes beyond the minimal requirement and adds context about the tool's side effects, though it does not detail response handling (covered by output schema).

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: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, the method in the second, and a crucial warning appended. No fluff or redundant information. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 covers the essential context: vulnerability identification, method, authorization requirement, and safety of the proof-of-concept. While it does not explain the output format, an output schema exists, and the description is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: verifying unrestricted file upload vulnerability (CWE-434), and specifies the method (sends an innocuous PHP proof-of-concept file and checks executability). It distinguishes from sibling security scan tools by naming the specific vulnerability type and technique.

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 an explicit caution to use only in authorized environments, which is a key usage guideline. It implies the tool is for security testing of file upload endpoints, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear enough given the specialized nature.

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