Burp Send

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

The description transparently discloses that the tool requires human approval (AGGRESSIVE), goes through the Burp proxy, records in Burp history, and fails if Burp is not listening. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with sending requests).

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 slightly verbose, repeating 'one request per target' and 'human-handoff primitive' multiple times. However, the structure is clear and the extra detail is useful, so it only loses one point for redundancy.

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 description provides sufficient context for a simple tool, including scope-checking, approval, and failure behavior. It lacks information about the return format, but given the tool's purpose as a human handoff, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for correct use.

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?

The description explains each parameter: target (comma-separated URLs, max from constant), method (list of allowed verbs), headers (overrides default User-Agent), and body (for POST/PUT/PATCH). It also notes defaults and nullable fields, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 sends an HTTP request through the operator's Burp proxy, distinguishing it from a scanner. It explicitly mentions 'human-handoff primitive' and lists example use cases (IDOR, business logic, race conditions, cache poisoning), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for cases that end in human reading a request, and explicitly states it is not a scanner. It also mentions scope-checking and human approval requirements, giving clear selection criteria relative to sibling scanning tools.

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