bb_ssti

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and supported engines but does not explain detection behavior, potential side effects (e.g., payload injection), authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal disclosure.

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, very concise, and front-loaded with purpose and engines. However, it sacrifices completeness; it is too brief to be useful for a complex 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?

The tool is complex (6 params, security scanner) with no output schema shown in description. The description lacks any context about return values, scanning process, or configuration. Highly incomplete.

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%. The description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (url, proxy, cookie, params, timeout, auth_token). The agent has no help understanding what these parameters do or how to use them.

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?

Clearly states it detects SSTI (Server-Side Template Injection) and lists specific template engines (Jinja2, Twig, FreeMarker, Velocity, ERB, Smarty). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling vulnerability scanning tools like bb_sqli or 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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or comparison with siblings, leaving the agent without decision support.

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