role_escalation_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 the tool's behavior: sending requests with different cookie values, testing JSON body manipulation, returning structured results, and importantly disclosing side effects: 'If json_body is set, sends POST/PUT requests that may modify state.' This is crucial information for a security testing tool that could potentially alter system state.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the testing methodology, specifies the return format, and ends with important side effect warnings. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some related concepts.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and critical side effects. The main gap is that without an output schema, the return format description could be more detailed, but the provided JSON structure gives adequate guidance.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'cookie/parameter-based role escalation' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 cookie/parameter-based role escalation' with specific actions like sending requests with role cookie values and JSON body manipulation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'auth_cookie_tamper' or 'idor_test' by focusing on privilege escalation testing through role manipulation rather than general authentication or IDOR testing.

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 this tool: testing for privilege escalation via cookies or JSON parameters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context implies it's for security testing scenarios where role-based access control needs validation.

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