analyze_access_control

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response comparison, volatile field cleaning, structural similarity calculation, the >85% threshold for suspicious success, stealth mode with random delays to evade WAF, and supported auth types. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 focused paragraph that starts with the primary action and adds supporting details without fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and behavior.

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 covers the core purpose, the detection logic, and key configuration options. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Some parameters like body_json and auth_key_name are not elaborated, but overall it is sufficient for a human or agent to select and use the tool.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the text must compensate. It explains the token comparison, auth types, stealth behavior, and delay, but leaves body_json and auth_key_name without additional context. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema for most parameters, but not all.

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 executes HTTP requests with two tokens and compares responses to detect authorization failures like BOLA/IDOR. This specific verb+resource+outcome distinguishes it from sibling tools such as execute_security_request or extract_json_value.

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 explains the exact scenario (comparing privileged vs unprivileged tokens) and the detection mechanism, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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