Ssrf Probe

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, open world), the description discloses that it requires human approval, asks the target to connect to loopback across a port list, and compares responses to a baseline. These details explain the mechanism and potential impact, exceeding the annotation information.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the tool's purpose immediately, followed by concise operational details and a clear scope limitation. No unnecessary verbosity, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has a simple schema with two parameters, and the description provides sufficient context on behavior, authorization (human approval), and limitations. An output schema is indicated, so the lack of output description is acceptable. The description covers all necessary aspects for correct usage.

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 'parameter' field as the query parameter suspected of taking a URL, but does not explain 'target', which is a required string. While 'target' is implied to be the URL to test, it is not explicitly described. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description covers only one of two parameters, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 tests one URL parameter for server-side request forgery using SSRFmap, and explicitly narrows it to the reachability module, distinguishing it from more dangerous SSRFmap modules. The verb 'test' and resource 'URL parameter' are specific, and the scope is 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 provides explicit usage guidance by contrasting this tool with SSRFmap modules that exfiltrate or pivot, noting they are not on the allowlist. It advises 'Confirm reachability here, then prove impact by hand with poc_record()', thereby telling when to use this tool (for reachability only) and what to do after.

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