bypass_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool tests multiple bypass methods (no cookie, modify user ID, remove auth header, backdoor paths) but does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, or state changes. This is moderate transparency.

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 (three sentences in Chinese) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 explains what the tool does and its methods, but it omits important context: there is no output schema, so the agent does not know what the tool returns (e.g., JSON with success/failure details). Given the tool's complexity and security implications, more context about output and safe usage is needed.

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 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by listing example test cases (e.g., no_cookie, fake_user_id) that correspond to the testCases enum, enhancing the schema meaning. It also clarifies the purpose of authApiPath and userIdToTest beyond the schema.

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 as 'authentication bypass detection' using multiple methods. It specifies the verb (检测) and resource (登录验证 bypass), and distinguishes itself from sibling security tools by focusing specifically on bypassing login verification.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like security_scan or security_sql_injection_scan. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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