bb_lfi

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions performing multiple traversal/PHP filter tests but does not disclose potential destructive behavior (e.g., reading sensitive files) or error handling. Minimal transparency.

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 (two short sentences) but lacks structure. It front-loads the main purpose but does not provide additional context. Could be more informative without adding length.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or what 'params' and 'auth_token' are for. The output schema may help, but the description itself offers insufficient context.

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 parameters. Only the required 'url' is implied, but no details on proxy, cookie, params, timeout, or auth_token.

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 it is for LFI (Local File Inclusion) path traversal detection, using multiple traversal and PHP filter tests. The verb is implied (detect/test), and the resource is LFI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bb_sqli and bb_xss.

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 explicit when or when-not instructions, but the name and description imply use for LFI testing. Alternatives are not mentioned, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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