nosqli_detect

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 behavioral traits: the tool sends ~10 requests, is read-only (no side effects), and returns a structured result including baseline, results with payload details, and injectable status. This covers operational impact and output format, though it could add more on error handling or limitations.

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 three concise sentences that cover purpose, behavior, and side effects without any wasted words. Each sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (security testing with multiple parameters) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, its behavior, and return structure, but could benefit from more details on error cases or specific injection techniques. However, it adequately covers the essentials for an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide examples beyond the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Test NoSQL injection detection') and resources ('in query parameters'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it targets MongoDB operator injection ($ne, $gt, $regex, $where) in GET parameters and JSON body. This is distinct from other security testing tools like 'sqli_blind_boolean' 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (testing NoSQL injection in query parameters and JSON body), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for detecting injection points, which is sufficient for context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like 'nosqli_auth_bypass'.

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