scan_security_headers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool actively fetches a site, grades its headers, and reports recommended fixes, but it does not disclose behavior on timeouts or unreachable URLs, whether redirects are followed, or that the scan is a live outbound request observable by the target. Core behavior is clear; edge-case behavior is not.

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 ~24-word sentence with the action front-loaded ('Fetch a website and grade...') and every clause earning its place: the methodology (OWASP), the grading scale (A–F), and the output shape (missing headers + exact header to add). There is zero waste and no repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and the return content (grade, missing headers, recommended header). It omits only negative-path behavior such as how unreachable sites or invalid URLs are handled, which is a minor gap at this low complexity level.

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 100% and the url parameter is already well documented with format examples ('example.com' or 'https://example.com'). The description's 'Fetch a website' adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names specific verbs ('fetch', 'grade'), a specific resource ('HTTP security headers'), a standard ('OWASP best practices'), a grading scale ('A–F'), and the concrete deliverable ('what is missing and the exact header to add'). An agent knows precisely what this tool does and what output to expect without any inference.

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 its usage context — auditing a website's security header posture — through a clear statement of function, but it never explicitly states when to use it, when not to, or any prerequisites. No sibling tools exist to differentiate from, so no routing guidance is possible, but explicit scenario guidance is still absent.

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