repeater_from_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the baseline contributes Host, cookies, auth, UA, etc., and overrides modify only specified fields. It also explains the page_size parameter for scanning history. However, it does not discuss behavior on missing id, conflicting overrides, or error states.

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 concise (about 10 lines) and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief explanation of the baseline concept, and a bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers input parameters well and acknowledges an output schema exists. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., having a history entry), possible errors, or the fact that it opens a new Repeater tab. Still, it is fairly complete for a tool with an output schema.

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, so the tool description's Args section provides essential meaning. Each parameter (history_id, tab_name, method, etc.) is briefly explained. While not exhaustive, the descriptions are sufficient to interpret parameter purposes and defaults.

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 action: 'Send a request to Burp Repeater, built from a history baseline plus optional structured overrides.' It specifies the resource (Burp Repeater using history) and distinguishes from siblings like 'repeater_from_template' by emphasizing the baseline and overrides.

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 but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., repeater_from_template, intruder_from_history). It mentions scanning history entries to find the id, which hints at a use case, but lacks direct guidance on when-not or alternatives.

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