bb_xss

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

The description mentions 'multiple context/event/attribute payloads', hinting at a testing methodology, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether it sends requests, modifies data, or has any side effects. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose ('XSS detection'). However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or separate sections, and the brevity sacrifices depth for conciseness.

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's complexity (7 parameters, an output schema, and a security testing context), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, authentication needs, or how to interpret results. Sibling tools have more detailed descriptions, making this one feel 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%, so the description should explain parameters. It only implies 'url' as the target but does not clarify 'proxy', 'cookie', 'method', 'params', 'timeout', or 'auth_token'. No added value beyond the parameter names.

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 'XSS detection — reflected XSS', specifying both the vulnerability type and the testing scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_sqli or bb_ssti, which target different vulnerability classes.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other XSS detection methods is given.

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