Exploit Prompt

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'prompt pack' framing aligns with an informational tool. It does not explicitly say that no scans or tests are performed, but the annotations cover this and the description does not contradict them.

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 compact and well structured, combining allowed values, tool behavior, and usage context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

It covers the tool's role, objective, scope constraints, success criteria, and evidence fields, which provides solid context for the single-parameter input. The output schema is mentioned as present but not shown, so output completeness cannot be fully verified, but the description gives enough practical context.

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 only parameter, bug_class, is explained with a complete list of accepted values in the description. There is no per-value detail, but the list is sufficient to use the parameter correctly.

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 returns a prompt pack for one vulnerability class and enumerates all valid bug_class values. It is slightly abstract ('prompt pack'), but the role and scope are understandable.

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 gives concrete timing guidance: use before live testing or writing up a candidate, and explains the finding-versus-lead distinction. However, it does not mention sibling tools or conditions for choosing an alternative, so usage guidance is partial.

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