tools_sqlmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that sqlmap can be destructive, requires network access, or what the output format is. The description only lists parameters without explaining tool behavior or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then lists parameters in a clear, structured block. Though somewhat lengthy, it is efficiently organized and each line adds value.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain behavioral aspects like destructiveness, return value format, or best practices, leaving gaps for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Target URL with parameter(s)'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the explanations are minimal and could be more detailed.

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 explicitly states 'Execute SQLmap SQL injection scanner,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. The tool's purpose is distinct from sibling tools like nmap or amass, making it easy for an agent to select it for SQL injection scanning.

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 guidance on when to use sqlmap versus other SQL injection tools or under what conditions. It lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives, leaving the agent without usage instructions.

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