sqli_where_bypass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds significant behavioral context. It discloses that the tool sends multiple payloads (listing examples like OR 1=1--), sends 7 requests total, compares response lengths, returns specific data (baseline_length and results array), and explicitly states side effects: 'None (read-only GET requests).' This covers safety, scope, and operational details well.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and method, second details output and side effects, third specifies request count. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains what the tool does, how it behaves (read-only, 7 requests), and what it returns. However, it could improve by detailing the structure of the results array or error handling, but given the context, it's largely sufficient.

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 three parameters (url, parameter, value) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but it implies the parameters are used for injection testing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action: 'Test WHERE clause bypass via OR 1=1 variants.' It identifies the exact technique (SQL injection testing with OR 1=1 variants) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqli_blind_boolean, sqli_blind_time, and sqli_union_extract by focusing on WHERE clause bypass rather than other SQLi methods.

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 specifying it targets a 'vulnerable query parameter' and compares response lengths to a baseline, suggesting it's for detecting SQL injection vulnerabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sqli_blind_boolean or sqli_login_bypass, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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