Authz Compare

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

The description contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint is false, but the description states the tool is restricted to GET/HEAD, which are read-only methods. This is a direct conflict—an agent following the annotations may expect side effects, while the description claims safety. The description otherwise adds useful context about candidate vs confirmed findings, but the contradiction overrides that.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence adds value—purpose, rationale for method restriction, and the candidate vs confirmed nuance. It is front-loaded with the core action and reasoning, making it easy to scan.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's focused scope, the description covers the essential decision-making context: what it does, why it is safe, and how to interpret results. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., authenticated sessions) but these are implied and covered by the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It explains the purpose of target (the URL), session_a and session_b (two identities), and method (restricted to GET/HEAD, default GET). This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not detail session formats or edge cases.

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 verb (fetch), the resource (one URL), and the specific goal (compare server responses for two identities to detect authorization flaws). It distinguishes this tool as the core authorization test, setting it apart from the many scanning and recon siblings.

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?

It explicitly frames when to use this tool (core authz test) and gives strong guidance on method restriction (GET/HEAD) with reasoning. It does not name alternatives but provides enough context for an agent to know this is the right tool for comparing access control between two sessions.

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