scan_post_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool tests for SQL injection but does not disclose that it sends potentially malicious payloads, which could trigger alarms or have legal implications. Important behavioral traits (e.g., network requests, authentication needs, side effects) are omitted.

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 well-organized in a docstring format with clear sections for Args and Returns. It front-loads the core purpose. Although slightly verbose due to repeated formatting notes (e.g., 'key=value pairs separated by...'), it remains readable and structured.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks critical context: the return format is only 'Scan results' without details; no guidance on sibling tool differences; no warning about the tool's potential destructive or intrusive nature. For a security scanning tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compensate. It provides explanations for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'target_url: Target URL', 'post_data: POST body data as key=value pairs separated by &'). While some descriptions are terse, they add significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 'Test a specific POST parameter for SQL injection,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_get_parameter' and 'scan_url' which target GET parameters or full URLs.

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 for testing a POST parameter for SQL injection, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scan_get_parameter, scan_urls_batch) or any prerequisites. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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