bb_ssrf

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions OOB hints and intranet scanning, which imply network requests, but does not disclose potential risks like making requests to internal resources or side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase), but it lacks substance for the number of parameters. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details, making it insufficiently structured for a 6-parameter tool.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description should explain parameters and output. It does neither. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., url, proxy, cookie). The agent receives no assistance in understanding parameter purpose or format beyond the schema structure.

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 SSRF detection and lists specific capabilities: intranet address detection, protocol conversion, and OOB hints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_sqli or bb_xss, which target different vulnerabilities.

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 SSRF testing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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