Exploit Chain

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

The description discloses that it runs exploit validators, generates candidate results rather than confirmed findings, and that validators store their own results. It also notes the need for human approval, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and gives a reasonable understanding of the tool's side effects.

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 concise and well-structured, using backticks for parameters and clearly separating the return value. It is slightly verbose in repeating the pipeline context, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 enough context for an agent to use the tool, including the parameters, the purpose, and the return summary. It does not include an explicit output schema, but the mentioned return fields ('tested' and per-point summary) are sufficient for basic usage.

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?

Every parameter is explained: target is the list of URLs, limit caps injection points, and include_heavy adds sqlmap and dalfox. This adds meaningful detail beyond the bare schema, which had zero parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool runs exploit validators across discovered injection points, and it explicitly notes that it requires human approval. This makes the primary 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 mentions it operates on injection points found in earlier phases and that it is part of a pipeline, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative validation or scanning tools. The guidance on when to use it versus other tools is implicit rather than explicit.

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