xss_reflected_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses key behavioral traits: sends 10 specific payload types, checks for unescaped reflection, returns detailed results array with vulnerable_count, and explicitly states side effects ('Read-only GET requests', 'Sends 10 requests'). This covers safety, scope, and operational impact.

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: purpose, methodology, and side effects. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It's front-loaded with the core function and maintains clarity throughout.

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 does an excellent job covering behavior, side effects, and result structure. It mentions the return format ('results array with reflected/encoded/status per payload, and vulnerable_count'), which compensates for the missing output schema. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or rate limit disclosure.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'parameter' generically and implying it's reflectable, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., examples or constraints). 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 tool's purpose: testing multiple reflected XSS vectors against a parameter. It specifies the action ('test', 'sends', 'checks'), the target ('reflected XSS vectors against a parameter'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reflected XSS testing rather than payload generation (xss_payload_generate) or other security tests.

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 you need to test for reflected XSS vulnerabilities in a specific parameter. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity of 'reflected XSS' and 'parameter' provides clear guidance compared to other tools like sqli_test or ssrf_test.

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