Payload Catalog

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

The description explicitly states 'touches no target and costs no budget,' which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying no network or resource side effects, and also notes tier C has no name bound, adding transparency about limitations.

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, well-structured, and avoids unnecessary verbiage, covering essential points in a few sentences.

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 covers the tool's purpose, use context (content_discovery), tier limitations, and points to documentation, providing enough context for an agent to decide when to call it; output schema exists, so return details are not required.

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 has one optional parameter 'tool' with no description of its purpose, and the description mentions no parameter at all, leaving agents without guidance on whether or how to use it.

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 lists payload wordlists for content and parameter discovery, explicitly notes it touches no target and costs no budget, and distinguishes it from other tools by referencing content_discovery's expected wordlist argument.

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 provides direct guidance on when to use this tool (to obtain wordlist names for content_discovery) and when not to (tier B for approval-gated exploitation tools, tier C quarantined), with a pointer to docs for details.

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