cmdi_blind_detect

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 effectively. It explicitly states side effects: 'Executes sleep on target if vulnerable. OOB payloads call back to callback_url.' It also describes what the tool returns: 'Returns time_based results array and oob_payloads list.' This provides crucial information about the tool's behavior that isn't in the schema.

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 in three sentences: purpose statement, return values, and side effects. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 security testing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, methods, return values, and side effects. The main gap is that without an output schema, more detail about the structure of 'time_based results array' and 'oob_payloads list' would be helpful, but the description gives enough context for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about callback_url ('e.g. Burp Collaborator' is implied) and mentions delay_seconds in the context of time-based detection, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Detect blind command injection via time delay and OOB callbacks.' It specifies the detection methods (sleep-based delay and out-of-band callbacks) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'cmdi_test' by focusing on blind injection detection rather than general command injection testing.

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: for detecting blind command injection using time delays and OOB techniques. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for blind injection scenarios rather than other types of command injection testing.

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