security_sql_injection_scan

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses injection of 20 payloads and detection of SQL errors, but does not mention potential side effects, safety, or whether it is destructive. With zero annotations, the description carries full burden and is partially transparent.

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?

Two sentences that are concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key details. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly complete, explaining the number of payloads and databases checked. However, it could mention potential risks or prerequisites.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds an example format and explains that URL must include query parameters, which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic description.

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 clearly states it performs SQL injection vulnerability scanning by injecting 20 payloads into query parameters and detecting error messages from various databases. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like security_xss_scan.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use for SQL injection scanning but does not provide exclusions or comparisons to other security scanning tools among siblings.

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