Grade a domain's HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, and more).
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral context. It only says 'grade', without mentioning that this likely involves making HTTP requests to the target domain, potential network dependencies, or what form the grade takes. This is a significant gap for a scanning tool.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource without superfluous details.
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 simple one-parameter scanner, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits behavioral details like network access and the output format (the grade), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 a detailed description of the 'domain' parameter (bare hostname, no scheme/path/port, rejects IP literals). The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.
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 the specific verb 'Grade' with a clear resource ('domain's HTTP security headers'), and lists examples (HSTS, CSP) that distinguish it from sibling tools like scan_domain_trust and scan_post_quantum.
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 purpose is clear but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. It implies usage for checking security headers but offers no exclusions or comparisons with the sibling scan tools.
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.
