xss_payload_generate

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 adds value by stating 'Side effects: None. Pure payload generation, no network requests,' clarifying safety and operational scope. It also describes the return structure ('Returns context, filter_bypass, payloads array, notes'), which is helpful since there's no output schema. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and behavioral traits. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value (payload generation, return details, side effects), with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, output structure, and safety (no side effects), compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or example usage, slightly reducing completeness.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'context' and 'filter_bypass' have enums and descriptions). The description adds minimal param semantics beyond the schema, only implying tailoring via 'context-appropriate' and 'filter bypass requirements.' Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where 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: 'Generate context-appropriate XSS payloads with optional filter evasion.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('XSS payloads'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on payload generation rather than testing (e.g., xss_reflected_test). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all security tools in the sibling list, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 through phrases like 'context-appropriate' and 'optional filter evasion,' suggesting it's for XSS testing scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xss_reflected_test for testing reflected XSS) or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly stated.

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