cors_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. It does an excellent job describing what the tool does: sends ~8 requests with custom Origin headers, checks specific response headers, identifies vulnerabilities, and explicitly states 'Read-only requests' (important safety context). It also describes the return format and side effects, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the auth_cookie parameter.

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 purpose, explains the methodology, describes the return value, and clarifies side effects - all in four concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 substantial context: it explains what the tool tests, how it works, what it returns, and side effects. The main gap is the lack of explicit output schema documentation, but the description does describe the return structure. Given the complexity of CORS testing, the description is quite complete, though it could benefit from more explicit guidance about when to use it.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'authenticated API responses' which relates to the auth_cookie parameter, but doesn't provide format details or usage guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Test CORS misconfigurations', 'Sends requests', 'checks Access-Control-Allow-Origin') and resources ('CORS misconfigurations', 'Origin headers', 'API responses'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on CORS testing rather than other security testing domains like SQL injection or XSS.

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 ('Test CORS misconfigurations', 'authenticated API responses') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for CORS testing, there's no guidance about prerequisites, timing, or comparison to other tools in the sibling list that might also test web vulnerabilities.

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