intruder_from_history

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

The description details the behavior of payload_markers (order, duplicate handling) but omits other behavioral traits such as whether the original history entry is modified, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, this is a moderate effort.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, then details payload_markers. It uses two concise sentences without superfluous words, though it could benefit from listing other parameters.

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 has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is very incomplete. It covers only one parameter and lacks context on the rest, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains payload_markers, leaving eight other parameters (tab_name, method, path, set_headers, remove_headers, body, page_size, history_id) completely undescribed. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 ('Send a request to Burp Intruder, built from a history baseline'), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like repeater_from_history, which have similar names and operations.

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 (e.g., repeater_from_history). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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