sqli_login_bypass

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: it discloses the multi-step behavior (extracts CSRF token, then POSTs with SQLi), the specific SQL injection technique (comment truncation), and what the tool returns (csrf_extracted, status_code, etc.). It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but covers core behavioral traits adequately.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences that efficiently explain the technique, process, and return values with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 multi-step security testing tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about the technique and return values. It could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., requires a vulnerable login form) or limitations, but covers the essential operational context well.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter 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: 'Bypass login via SQL comment truncation' with a specific technique example ('administrator'--'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sqli_blind_boolean' or 'sqli_union_extract' by focusing on authentication bypass rather than general SQL injection exploitation.

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: when targeting login forms with SQL injection vulnerabilities and CSRF tokens. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the technique specificity provides some implicit guidance.

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