inject_xss_payload

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

The description states the core behavioral flow: inject probes and check for reflection. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose important traits such as the default clear_first behavior, whether the page is submitted or navigated, or what the result/return looks like. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It earns its place but is somewhat underspecified, preventing a perfect score for structure.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough. It does not state return values, side effects like clearing the input, or how reflection is detected. The tool's combined injection-and-detection behavior needs more context to be reliably invoked.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for underdocumented parameters. It adds some meaning by framing selector as an input/textarea target and payloads as XSS probes, but it does not explain clear_first or the selector syntax/format. Significant parameter ambiguity remains.

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 identifies the action ('inject'), the target ('input/textarea'), and the goal ('check for reflection'). It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like inject_payload or find_reflection.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools such as inject_payload and find_reflection exist, but the description does not explain how this tool relates to them or when to prefer one over the other. The only implied usage is targeting input/textarea elements.

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