test_idor

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Test', which does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires authentication, or has any destructive potential. Essential behavioral traits are entirely omitted.

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 a single short sentence, which might seem concise, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. It fails to communicate necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact.

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 (4 parameters, security testing context, many siblings) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, test methodology, or how parameters control the test, leaving an AI agent with insufficient information.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the tool description adds no explanation of what each parameter does (e.g., start_id, end_id, param_name). The parameter names alone are insufficient for an agent to construct valid invocations.

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?

Description states 'Test for Insecure Direct Object Reference', which identifies the vulnerability type but does not specify what the test does (e.g., scans, validates, exploits) or how it differs from siblings like scan_access_control_vulnerabilities. The purpose is vague and lacks a specific verb or resource beyond the vulnerability name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_website_comprehensive or scan_access_control_vulnerabilities. There are no usage examples, context prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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