generate_xss_callback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'authorized' and that payloads ping the webhook, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., that the payload may collect cookies or DOM data) or security considerations beyond authorization. The phrase 'authorized XSS payloads' is slightly misleading since the tool itself doesn't authorize; it generates payloads for authorized use. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 total, zero waste. Effectively front-loaded with purpose and a usage caution. The description is concise and gets straight to the point.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (one required) and an output schema, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain output content, parameter roles, or how the payload integrates with the webhook. Given low schema coverage and no annotations, this falls short of what a complex security tool needs. It's missing essential details for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is only 25% (webhook_token has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, such as identifier, include_dom, or include_cookies. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't address parameter meaning or defaults, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 the tool builds authorized XSS payloads that ping a webhook when executed. This is specific (verb 'build', resource 'XSS payloads', purpose 'ping webhook') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_ssrf_payload or create_webhook.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Use only on systems you are allowed to test' and suggests confirming via check_for_callbacks. This gives clear authorization guidance, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it; still, it's sufficient for indicating appropriate scenarios.

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