bb_cors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs 12 types of Origin reflection tests and analyzes preflight requests and credentials, but it does not mention whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or any side effects.

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 very concise (one line) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, especially about parameters. Still, it is efficient for the purpose it serves.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of input parameters, expected output, and usage scenarios. The 12 tests mentioned are not elaborated.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (url, proxy, cookie, timeout, auth_token). The agent must rely solely on parameter titles and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for CORS detection, specifying '12 Origin reflection tests + preflight requests + credential configuration analysis'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_headers. However, the verb '检测' (detection) is implicit rather than explicit about the action taken.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bb_headers). The description only states what the tool does but does not provide context for selection or prerequisite conditions.

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