security_headers_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what headers are checked, which adds value beyond the schema, but it does not disclose potential side effects like sending HTTP requests, impact on the target, or any rate limits. This is a slight gap for a scan 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 extremely concise, with a front-loaded main purpose and a compact list of checked headers. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema, return value details are not needed. The description covers the tool's essential function and scope. It slightly lacks context about the scan's network side effects, but this is implied. Full parameter coverage and output schema make it fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific context, but the schema fully documents each parameter. The description's mention of 'other security headers' is not parameter-related.

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 states 'Scan for missing or misconfigured security headers' with a specific verb and resource. It lists specific headers (CSP, HSTS, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like cors_scan, misconfig_scan, and error_page_scan.

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 context is clear: this tool is for discovering missing or misconfigured security headers. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity of the tool name and description makes its usage obvious relative to siblings.

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