bb_cmdi

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

The description mentions specific techniques (time blind + output echo) giving some behavioral insight, but fails to disclose that the tool sends HTTP requests, potential destructive actions, or authentication needs. No annotations exist to compensate.

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 line, concise but lacking structure. It communicates the purpose efficiently but is too brief for proper context.

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 an output schema presence, the description fails to explain the tool's behavior with 6 undocumented parameters, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke it. No annotations or parameter details are provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not mention any of the 6 parameters or their roles in the detection process.

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 is for command injection detection, specifying two techniques (time blind and output echo). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like bb_sqli or bb_lfi.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about required inputs or expected outcomes.

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