file_upload_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: 'Side effects: Uploads files to the server. May achieve remote code execution.' It also describes the testing flow (upload then access check) and return format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the auth_cookie parameter, or error handling.

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 with the core purpose. It lists techniques clearly and ends with side effects. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Attempts to upload...' followed by 'After each upload...'), but overall it's efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 complex security testing tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the testing methodology, techniques, return structure, and side effects. However, it doesn't detail the output schema (only mentions return format vaguely) or error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how url and upload_endpoint combine or provide examples for extra_fields). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Test web shell upload with Content-Type bypass variants' and details specific techniques (direct .php upload, Content-Type bypass, alternative extensions, double extension, null byte). It clearly distinguishes this as a file upload security testing tool, unlike sibling tools focused on authentication, SQL injection, XSS, etc.

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 file upload vulnerabilities but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., path_traversal_test or other sibling tools). It mentions 'Attempts to upload a PHP web shell' which suggests a specific testing context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with other tools.

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