pentest_web_sqlmap

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful context beyond the schema: batch (non-interactive) mode, bounded level/risk, and a runtime dependency on sqlmap being installed. However, it says nothing about permission/scope-check requirements, runtime, output format, or what a successful scan produces.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though bordering on under-specification for a 4-parameter tool.

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 a tool with four parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. The agent lacks parameter semantics and behavioral detail (scope enforcement, runtime, output) needed to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names url, level, and risk, but offers no ranges or semantics for level/risk (e.g., 1-5, 1-3) and never mentions the 'param' parameter at all, leaving a whole argument undocumented in both places.

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 action and tool: run sqlmap in batch mode against a URL. The named tool (sqlmap) makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like pentest_web_reflection or pentest_zap_active_scan, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

Implies when to use it (SQL injection testing on an in-scope target) and hints at a prerequisite via 'in-scope URL', but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, and does not point to any alternative tool for non-SQLi web testing.

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