cmdi_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 excellently. It explicitly states side effects ('Read-only detection commands'), execution details ('Sends ~14 requests'), and the return format ('Returns results array with operator, payload, status, output_snippet, likely_vulnerable'), providing comprehensive behavioral context beyond the input 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 perfectly front-loaded and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific details about operators, commands, return format, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, methodology, return format, side effects, and execution characteristics. Given the complexity of command injection testing, this description gives the AI agent everything needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it does give context about the testing approach (shell operators, detection commands) that helps understand parameter usage. This meets the baseline for 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: 'Test command injection using various shell operators' with specific detection commands ('id' and 'whoami'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cmdi_blind_detect' by focusing on explicit operator testing rather than blind detection, making the verb+resource+scope specific and differentiated.

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 testing command injection vulnerabilities with shell operators. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the tool's specialized nature among security testing siblings.

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