collaborator_generate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the OOB testing nature and the need to save payloads for later checking. However, it could mention that generated payloads are unique and time-limited, though not strictly required.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple parameter (count) and presence of output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, how to use it, and next steps. No gaps.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), but description compensates by implying 'count' through 'one or more'. It adds value by explaining how to use the parameter (generate multiple). Could explicitly mention 'count' default, but still strong.

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 action (generate), resource (Burp Collaborator payloads), and purpose (out-of-band injection canaries). It distinguishes from siblings like collaborator_check by specifying a different role.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: for SSRF, blind XSS, OOB SQLi, etc. It also provides the workflow: generate, save, plant, then poll collaborator_check, which guides the agent on the correct sequence.

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