auth_csrf_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it performs a 'Single GET request' (indicating network interaction and potential side effects), specifies search locations ('hidden input fields, meta tags, and script blocks'), and outlines the return structure. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by implementation details and return format. Each sentence adds value: the second explains search methods, the third specifies output, and the fourth notes side effects. There is zero wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, output structure, and side effects. However, it lacks details on error cases or performance considerations, which could be helpful for an agent invoking this tool in varied contexts.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters ('url' and 'token_name') well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but doesn't contradict it either. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Extract CSRF tokens from HTML forms.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('CSRF tokens'), and scope ('from HTML forms'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'auth_bruteforce' or 'auth_cookie_tamper' by focusing on token extraction rather than authentication attacks or cookie manipulation.

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 implies usage context by specifying it searches for tokens in 'hidden input fields, meta tags, and script blocks,' which suggests it's for web security testing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other auth-related siblings) or any prerequisites, such as needing accessible HTML pages.

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