bb_host_inject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 9 types of tests but does not disclose how it executes them, what side effects occur (e.g., sending requests), or any authentication requirements (though an auth_token parameter exists). The output schema is present but not referenced.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and scope. However, it is entirely in Chinese, which may affect readability for some agents.

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, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not cover usage prerequisites, parameter details, or output expectations, despite the existence of an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation of the parameters (url, proxy, cookie, timeout, auth_token), leaving the agent with no guidance beyond their names and types.

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: Host header injection detection. It lists specific attack types (Host override, XFH, Forwarded, duplicate Host, etc., 9 types), making it distinct from sibling tools like bb_headers or bb_sqli.

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 implies usage for host header injection testing, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling tool names provide context, but no direct comparison is made.

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