pentest_web_param_discovery

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It doesn't say whether this sends live requests to the target (implying authorization/scope requirements), how many requests result from N params, whether it can alter server state, or what the diff output looks like. Only the diffing technique itself is disclosed.

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 the technique stated compactly and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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 HTTP-probing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero documented parameters, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell the request volume, target scope implications, or result shape before invoking 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 all three parameters. The description hints at the role of `params` (each entry is tested by diffing with/without it), but says nothing about `url` format, what `method` accepts beyond the 'get' default, or whether params apply to GET query strings versus POST bodies — a meaningful ambiguity for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb (Detect) and resource (hidden or dynamic parameters) plus the mechanism (diffing responses with and without each parameter). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pentest_web_dirbust or pentest_web_crawl, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when a different sibling (e.g. dirbust, crawl, reflection) would be the better choice. The agent must infer the entire selection context from the one-sentence purpose.

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