deserialization_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it describes actions ('sends requests with modified cookies'), potential outcomes ('may escalate privileges if successful'), and side effects. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or specific prerequisites.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, such as detailing detection patterns, manipulation attempts, returns, and side effects, with minimal redundancy. A slight improvement could be made by structuring it more explicitly for quick scanning.

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 complexity of a security testing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, returns, and side effects. However, it could benefit from more details on error cases, prerequisites, or example scenarios to fully guide an agent in complex environments.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. It mentions 'cookie value to analyze' and 'target URL' but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('detect and manipulate serialized objects in cookies') and resources ('cookies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'auth_cookie_tamper' or 'role_escalation_test' by focusing on serialization patterns and privilege escalation through field modification.

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 for security testing of serialized objects in cookies, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auth_cookie_tamper' or 'role_escalation_test'. It provides some context (e.g., 'if a serialized format is detected') but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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