idor_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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's read-only ('Read-only requests'), specifies side effects ('Sends len(id_list) + 1 requests'), and outlines error conditions ('ConnectionError if target unreachable'). It also explains the testing logic and return structure, adding valuable context beyond basic parameters.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers testing logic, returns, side effects, and errors in clear sections. While slightly detailed, each sentence adds value (e.g., explaining IDOR detection and request count), with no redundant 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?

Given the complexity of a security testing tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the tool's purpose, behavior, return format, side effects, and errors. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit output schema, but the return description compensates adequately for this context.

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 does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples). However, it implies the relationship between parameters like 'url' and 'parameter' in the testing process, offering minimal additional context.

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 Insecure Direct Object References by iterating through IDs/GUIDs.' It specifies the action (test), the vulnerability type (IDOR), and the method (iterating through IDs/GUIDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other security tests like auth_bruteforce or xss_reflected_test.

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 by explaining what IDOR testing involves and when it suggests a vulnerability ('Differing responses suggest IDOR'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other security testing tools in the sibling list) or provide exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative direction.

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