clickjacking_test

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 and does so comprehensively. It explicitly describes side effects ('Single HEAD/GET request'), output structure, vulnerability assessment logic, and the conditional generation of PoC HTML. This provides excellent transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, explains the process, describes the output, and notes side effects—all in three concise, information-dense sentences that each earn their place.

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 complexity (security testing with conditional PoC generation) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and side effects, making it fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the target_url should be tested for clickjacking vulnerability and providing an example ('e.g. https://target/my-account'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic parameter documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('check', 'generate', 'fetches') and resources (X-Frame-Options and CSP frame-ancestors headers, PoC iframe HTML). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on clickjacking vulnerability testing rather than other security tests like XSS, SQLi, or authentication attacks.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to test for clickjacking vulnerabilities by checking specific headers. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the security testing context is implied by the sibling list.

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