check_http_security_headers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing behavioral: not which headers are evaluated, whether redirects are followed, whether the endpoint is fetched over the network, or whether auth/rate limits apply. 'Audit' implies a passive read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the object, with no filler whatsoever.

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 and no annotations, the description should at least sketch what an audit returns (which headers, pass/fail framing) or what a valid target looks like. For a simple one-parameter probe it is minimally sufficient but leaves real gaps.

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 0% for the single `url` parameter, so the description must compensate; it only implies the value should be an HTTP(S) endpoint via the phrase 'HTTP(S) endpoint'. It adds no format, scheme, or path guidance beyond that.

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 (audit) and resource (HTTP(S) response headers), which cleanly separates it from siblings like check_ssl (TLS/cert) and scan_ports (open ports). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus check_ssl or scan_ports, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is inferred from the tool name and the word 'audit'.

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