Upload Surface

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explicitly states that no uploads are performed and clarifies the output nature as leads, not findings. This provides transparency about the tool's side effects and result interpretation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating the detection-only message). Still, it is well-structured and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 context about the output (leads for human/approved validator) and indicates the tool is passive, which helps the agent understand its role. However, it lacks details about the output schema and parameter semantics, which would enhance 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 input schema defines target (required string) and max_urls (integer with default), but the description does not explain their meaning or format. The description references 'discovered pages' but does not clarify what target should contain, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 detects file-upload surfaces and specifies the method (fetch pages read-only) and the output (URLs with upload indicators). It distinguishes its scope by noting that nothing is uploaded, making it a passive detection tool.

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 implies when to use it (for reconnaissance to find upload points) and provides guidance on how to treat results (as leads for human or approved validator, not findings). It also clarifies that it is detection-only, so it shouldn't be used for active exploitation.

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