Smuggling Canary Probe

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool scores confidence statistically, returns coverage data (payloads sent, detectors run/skipped), and clarifies that zero findings do not necessarily imply a clean target. It does not, however, elaborate on potential side effects or network impact, though the 'repeat' parameter and cap are mentioned.

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 moderately concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, methodology, and output interpretation. It avoids fluff but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating the cap and the meaning of zero findings) that could be tightened.

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 good output context, explaining that results include coverage metrics and that zero findings should not be over-interpreted. It covers the key aspects of what the tool does and what the result means, but omits details like error handling or edge cases, which are less critical for a probe tool.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description explains only the 'repeat' parameter (retry count, capped at 10) but leaves 'http2', 'target', and 'timeout' undescribed. While some may be self-explanatory, the lack of explicit guidance for three of four parameters is a significant gap.

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 states a clear verb and object: 'Test for HTTP request smuggling' with a specific technique (canary reflection). It distinguishes this tool from generic smuggling probes by emphasizing canary-based proof and statistical repetition.

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 explains the internal methodology (repeat count, statistical scoring) but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool over alternatives like 'smuggling_probe' or other probing tools. It implies use for confirmation via canaries, but lacks direct comparison or condition-based guidance.

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