Cmdi Probe

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

Description claims 'never a shell' and explicitly excludes file-based techniques because they 'change the target', but annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about whether the tool may alter or damage the target.

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?

Description is compact and mostly purposeful; the PyPI identity-marker note is somewhat tangential but relates to avoiding a fake package. Overall it stays focused and front-loads the key behavior.

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?

Provides enough operational detail to invoke correctly: target, optional parameters, safety constraints, and technique limitations. Output schema exists but is not shown, so the lack of output explanation is acceptable.

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 has no parameter descriptions, but prose explains that parameter restricts testing to one parameter and level widens the payload set. 'target' is not described but is obvious from the tool's purpose and required status.

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 OS command injection using commix, explicitly limits to detection ('Detection only, never a shell'), and distinguishes itself from exploitation tools. The resource (target URL with optional parameter) and action (probe) are obvious despite the 'EXPLOIT' label.

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?

Explains parameter and level mechanics but does not say when to choose this tool over the many sibling injection/validation tools. It gives a boundary ('detection only') but no explicit use-case comparison or trigger condition.

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