pentest_web_host_header

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It doesn't say this sends active, tampered requests against a live target, that it may affect a shared cache or trigger password-reset emails, or that authorization/scope verification is expected before running — all critical for an intrusive test.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the targeted vulnerability class is stated immediately. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as a fragment rather than a complete operational note.

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?

For an active web test with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what a result looks like (vulnerable/not, evidence captured), whether requests are intrusive, and any preconditions. An agent can identify the tool's intent but not safely or correctly operate it.

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 0% for the single `url` parameter, and the description adds nothing about it: not whether it is a base URL, a full endpoint URL, or which component is the injection point. The agent must guess the expected format from the parameter name alone.

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 uses a specific verb ("Test") on a specific resource ("Host / X-Forwarded-Host handling") and names the outcome class it targets (cache poisoning, password-reset poisoning). This distinguishes it from adjacent web siblings like pentest_web_headers or pentest_web_cors, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 attack scenarios mentioned imply when to reach for it (during web assessment of host-header handling), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisite such as scope check or prior discovery of reset/cache functionality, and no alternative tool suggested for general header enumeration.

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