sqli_blind_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's read-only (stated explicitly), slow due to delay mechanisms, sends 3 requests, and returns specific outputs ('vulnerable, dbtype, and results array'). It also mentions side effects like waiting up to 'delay_seconds', adding useful context beyond basic functionality.

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. However, the second sentence could be more streamlined (e.g., combining detection and measurement aspects), and some details like 'Sends 3 requests' might be slightly redundant if implied by the process.

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 fairly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, side effects, and return values. It could improve by specifying error handling or prerequisites, but it adequately informs usage without structured annotations.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'delay_seconds' affects detection accuracy or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 ('detection', 'sends', 'measures') and resources ('MySQL, PostgreSQL, and MSSQL', 'sleep-inducing payloads', 'response time'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sqli_blind_boolean' by specifying time-based detection rather than boolean-based.

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 SQL injection detection with time-based techniques but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sqli_blind_boolean' or 'sqli_union_extract'. It provides some context (e.g., 'for MySQL, PostgreSQL, and MSSQL') 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.