burp_send_to_burp

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of being asynchronous ('the next time the Burp plugin polls'), but does not cover failure handling, reversibility, or authorization requirements. Without annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but incomplete for a tool that queues actions.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence defines the core action, and the second enumerates supported actions with brief clarifications. No redundant information is present.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and action types well but omits details about return values, error behavior, or the queuing mechanism's side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that certain parameters are required for specific action types (e.g., 'raw_request_b64' for send_to_repeater), which goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions and clarifies conditional usage.

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 specifies that the tool queues an action for execution in Burp Suite, listing three distinct action types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'burp_status' (read-only) or 'burp_clear' (removal) by explicitly stating it is for sending actions.

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 explains when to use the tool (to queue actions in Burp) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes. The context implies usage for sending actions, but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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