Smuggling Probe

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations by explicitly stating that the tool requires human approval, can poison connections for subsequent users, uses --exit_early to stop after first finding, keeps timeout low, and is timing-based. This provides full transparency about the tool's actions and risks.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence adds important context—collateral risk, exit_early behavior, timing method, and follow-up advice. It is well-structured, starting with purpose, then risks, then technical details, then recommended post-processing. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the moderately complex destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: purpose, risk, execution behavior, and appropriate follow-up. The output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it safely.

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 input schema has only two parameters (target and method), with target required and method defaulting to POST. The description does not explain these parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. While the meaning of 'target' is obvious and 'method' is likely the HTTP method, the lack of any parameter description means the agent must infer details, especially for the optional method parameter.

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 detects HTTP request smuggling (CL.TE / TE.CL desync) using smuggler, and explains the timing-based technique. It distinguishes this tool from others in the module by warning that it has collateral impact, which is a unique characteristic among the sibling tools.

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 gives strong usage guidance by stating that unlike everything else in the module, a hit here has collateral, and advises re-testing manually against a controlled target or with explicit program approval. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., smuggling_canary_probe) but the contrast with other tools is clear.

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