SimplyScan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope context (which engines and signals are inspected), but discloses no behavioral traits such as rate limits, whether the check is live vs cached, or how long it takes. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the tool's label ('AEO check:') first and no filler. The parenthetical engine list is dense but earns its place by scoping the check.

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 is adequate for a one-parameter read-only check, but with no output schema present it leaves the result shape undefined – an agent cannot tell whether it gets a pass/fail, a per-engine breakdown, or the raw llms.txt/structured-data findings.

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 100% with a single required 'url' parameter whose format and meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (check) and a specific resource/domain (AI answer-engine crawlability and citation), and enumerates the concrete signals examined (GPTBot, Claude, Perplexity, Google-Extended, llms.txt, structured data). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_seo or check_ssl, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when the tool is relevant (whenever AEO/AI-crawlability matters) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance relative to check_seo, scan_website, or the other check_* tools. Usage is left to inference from the purpose statement.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the exact check set, the important caveat that DKIM is only probed via 'common selectors' (a false-negative risk), and the interpretation that results flag spoofable domains.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the scope of checks. Every clause earns its place, including the parenthetical caveat about selectors.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining findings and does so at a high level ('flags spoofable domains'). It leaves the actual result shape and severity semantics unspecified, but for a one-parameter read-only check it is close to sufficient.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'domain' with an example. The description adds no format, normalization, or subdomain-handling guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a domain's email authentication') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. It is unambiguous on its own, though it never contrasts itself with siblings such as check_security_headers or check_ssl, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 is implied by the description ('Flags spoofable domains') but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. For a single-purpose, low-ambiguity read tool this is adequate rather than helpful.

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

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the output shape ('Reports HTTP status only, never file contents'), which is important for an agent interpreting results. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth needs, or network/legal constraints of probing a live site.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the key output constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only probe with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, target examples, and the nature of the result. Minor gaps remain around result interpretation and any access/rate constraints when hitting a live site.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Probe') and a precise resource ('accidentally exposed high-risk files') with concrete examples (.env, .git/config, backups). It is distinguishable from siblings like check_security_headers and check_ssl, though it never names an alternative to reinforce that distinction.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus the several adjacent check_* tools. The agent must infer that this is a security-posture check.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network-access profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail by enumerating the seven headers checked and the A-F grading, but says nothing about rate limits, redirect handling, or what happens on unreachable/non-https URLs.

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?

One tightly packed sentence: the action, the resource, the inspected header list, and the scoring scale are all front-loaded with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of conveying the return shape, and it does so at a high level via the A-F grade plus the per-header enumeration. It stops short of describing the response structure (per-header pass/fail, score breakdown), which is a minor remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'url' including its uri format and https requirement. The description adds no further syntax, defaulting, or constraint information, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Grade), resource (a URL's HTTP security headers), the exact header set inspected, and the A-F output scale. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like check_ssl, check_email_security, and check_exposed_files, which cover different surfaces.

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 is implied by the purpose (audit one URL's header posture), but the description never states when to pick this over check_ssl or scan_website, nor any prerequisites such as needing a reachable https endpoint. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the graded output ('Returns an A-F grade') and the enumerated audit surface, which matters because there is no output schema to convey the return shape.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the audit scope. No filler, no restating of the tool name, and the return of an A-F grade is tacked on efficiently at the end.

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 one-parameter read-only auditing tool with no output schema, the description covers both what is inspected and the shape of the result (a letter grade), which is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around accessibility/crawlability requirements of the target URL and expected runtime, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Full https URL to check'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about URL requirements — e.g. whether the page must be publicly crawlable, whether redirects are followed, or how non-https or malformed URLs are handled.

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?

States a specific action (on-page SEO audit) on a specific resource (a URL) and enumerates the exact check categories covered: title, meta description, H1, canonical, indexability, Open Graph, structured data, image alt coverage, sitemap. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_security_headers or check_ssl.

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 is implied by the name and description — audit a single page's on-page SEO — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_ai_visibility, scan_website, or scan_local_code, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. A reader can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read, external-network profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content beyond that by naming what the inspection surfaces — issuer, expiry, protocol, and expiring/self-signed/mismatched flags — which tells the agent this is a passive diagnostic that reports problems rather than fixing them.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned fields. Nothing is padded or restated from the title or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carrying the result fields (issuer, expiry, protocol, flags) is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response. Minor gaps remain — no mention of behavior for unreachable/non-HTTPS domains or of output format — but for a one-parameter read-only check it is sufficiently 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Domain, e.g. example.com'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether a scheme, port, or hostname-only form is acceptable, which is the baseline-3 case when coverage is high.

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?

Specific verb (Inspect) plus a precise resource (a domain's SSL/TLS certificate), and it enumerates the concrete outputs (issuer, expiry, protocol, expiry/self-signed/mismatch flags). The resource is cleanly distinct from every sibling (email security, headers, SEO, AI visibility, local code), so an agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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 is only implied by the purpose: an agent infers 'use this when you need certificate health for a domain.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (public reachability of the domain), and no reference to alternatives such as check_security_headers for adjacent checks.

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

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

With annotations only covering readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: ephemeral in-memory processing, no retention, masked findings persisted to a private scan record, no AI provider access, and a Pro-key requirement. This is exactly the kind of data-handling and auth disclosure an agent needs before sending source code.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences each carry a distinct fact (auth, retention/masking, provider isolation, language coverage, no-score outcome). The two adjacent privacy sentences overlap slightly and the block is dense, but nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers behavior, auth, data handling, and even hints at the result ('no score' when nothing is analysable). It does not describe the shape of the returned findings or where the scan record is surfaced, leaving a modest gap.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'files' array, so the description must compensate; it explains the semantic content (editor file contents, JS/TS analysed, other files secrets-only) but omits the structural constraints the agent will hit (max 50 files, 200k chars per content, path/content shape). Partial compensation, not full.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Send selected editor file contents to the SimplyScan Security Engine's deterministic repository rules') and pins the scope as local/editor code, which cleanly separates it from the sibling scan_website. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It states a real prerequisite ('Requires a Pro API key') and scopes applicability ('Code rules analyse JavaScript and TypeScript; other files are checked for secrets only'), which tells the agent what input is worth sending. It never explicitly contrasts itself with scan_website or states when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description usefully adds the auth/pricing model and the shape of the result (0-100 score plus named finding categories). It omits operational traits an agent would want, such as scan duration or whether the call is synchronous, which matters for a non-read-only, open-world scan.

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?

Three dense sentences, action-first, with the outcome and access tier packed into the same breath. No filler beyond the product branding, and nothing that could be dropped without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return values (score plus finding categories) and the entitlement model. For a single-parameter tool this is nearly sufficient, though run time, behavior on unreachable URLs, and rate limits are unaddressed.

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 100% for the single url parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the URL must point at a deployed (publicly reachable) web app, not local source. That materially narrows what value to pass.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Run a ... security & speed scan') plus what it produces (0-100 score, findings like exposed secrets, missing RLS, frontend leaks, speed). The 'deployed web app URL' scope cleanly separates it from the local-code sibling scan_local_code and from the narrow check_* tools.

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?

Gives clear context on the target case ('deployed web app URL', 'Best for apps built with Lovable, Bolt, v0, Cursor, Replit') and the access tier (Pro with entitled API key, otherwise free). It never explicitly says when to prefer this over check_security_headers or check_ssl, so the alternative routing is left to inference.

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