Generate an attack briefing for a HackerOne program, combining live bounty scope, past findings, untouched assets, suggested vectors, and sample public disclosures to guide your next security assessment.
Attack briefing for a program, all live: bounty scope, your past findings, untouched assets, suggested vectors, public disclosures sample.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_handle | Yes | Program handle (e.g. 'uber') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that data is 'all live' and discloses the sections returned, which gives some transparency. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what authentication is assumed, or what 'your past findings' means in relation to the caller.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Attack briefing for a program'), followed by a precise list of contents. Every element adds value; there is no filler or repetition.
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?
For a tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description gives a useful inventory of what the briefing contains. It is slightly incomplete in not defining whose past findings are included or how fresh 'live' data is, but an agent can reasonably decide when and how to invoke this tool.
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 schema describes the only parameter, program_handle, with an example ('uber') and 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage and one parameter, it does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific deliverable ('Attack briefing for a program') and enumerates its contents: bounty scope, past findings, untouched assets, suggested vectors, and a public disclosures sample. This is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes the tool from granular sibling tools, though it uses a noun rather than a clear verb and does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.
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: call this when you want an aggregated attack briefing for a program. It does not, however, provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as hackerone_get_program_details or hackerone_get_program_scope for narrower data needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.