Forbidden Bypass

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

The description labels the tool as AGGRESSIVE and requiring human approval, which signals active testing behavior. It does not enumerate all possible side effects, but it provides meaningful context beyond the annotations, which are enough to indicate it may send crafted 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 compact and well-structured in two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and critical constraints, includes the return behavior, and contains no unnecessary detail.

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 decide when and how to invoke the tool, including prerequisites, parameter usage, and expected output. The reference to forbidden_candidates helps integrate it with the surrounding workflow.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, but the tool description compensates by explaining that url must be a previously 403-returning URL and that prefix optionally adds an API version prefix such as /v2. This gives the agent the necessary context for both parameters.

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's purpose: test a URL that returned 403 against twelve access-bypass techniques. It also describes the output, the first working technique with a curl PoC or a clean report, making the 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 explicitly says the URL must have returned 403 and tells the user to run forbidden_candidates or check the probe result first. It also explains the optional prefix parameter with an example and notes that the tool refuses invalid input.

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