Audit a domain's DNS, TLS, certificates, and email authentication (SPF/DKIM/DMARC/DNSSEC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A bare public hostname to scan, for example example.com. No scheme, path, or port; IP literals and internal hostnames are rejected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Audit' vaguely suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, return format, network behavior, timeout considerations, or any permissions required. It only lists what is audited.
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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence that lists all key areas. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.
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 description covers the high-level scope, which helps the agent understand what the tool does. However, with no output schema and no behavioral guidance, it leaves uncertainty about what the tool returns (e.g., a report, a score, a pass/fail) and how the scan behaves, especially given it covers multiple complex areas.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single 'domain' parameter, including format and validation rules. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles it adequately.
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 uses a specific verb 'Audit' and clearly enumerates the resource and scope: a domain's DNS, TLS, certificates, and email authentication. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming these concrete audit areas.
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?
Usage context is implied by the description — one would use this to audit domain trust-related security properties. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over scan_post_quantum or scan_security_headers, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct security scanning area: overall domain trust (DNS/TLS/email), post-quantum TLS, and HTTP security headers. No overlap in purpose or output.
All tools follow a strict 'scan_<object>' pattern, making the action and target clear. Naming is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for a specialized domain scanner. Each tool provides substantial value and covers a key aspect of security post-assessment.
The set covers major security layers (infrastructure, crypto, web) but could include additional scans like TLS version checks or email-specific authentication. Minor gap, easily worked around.
