Sqli Validate

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it states 'Detection only, never data extraction' while annotations mark destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description itself also labels the tool as 'EXPLOIT', suggesting potentially harmful actions, but does not clearly disclose that it will send requests or could disrupt the target. This lack of clarity and the apparent contradiction reduce transparency.

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 verbose and contains redundant passages—notably, the 'bypass_vendor' explanation appears twice with similar wording. The inclusion of a paragraph about 'payload_list' and '--tamper' adds unnecessary detail that distracts from the core purpose. A more streamlined description would be clearer.

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 tool's complexity and the large list of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks clear differentiation from similar tools, does not specify operational effects (beyond vague 'detection' vs. 'exploit'), and omits details about target format and error handling. The contradiction between 'detection only' and 'destructive' further undermines completeness.

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 description explains the 'bypass_vendor' parameter in detail (a WAF vendor name used for bypass), but it does not explain the required 'target' parameter at all. Since target is a required string and likely represents a URL or endpoint, the lack of any semantic guidance for this critical parameter 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 clearly states the tool's primary purpose: 'Detect SQL injection with sqlmap. Detection only, never data extraction.' This is specific and distinguishes it from data extraction tools, though the word 'EXPLOIT' at the beginning introduces some ambiguity about whether it is purely for detection.

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 implicitly indicates usage for SQL injection detection and clarifies that it does not perform data extraction, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like web_injection_probe or exploit_chain. The mention of 'requires human approval' is a guideline, but there is no direct statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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