security_csp_generator

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 discloses that the tool catches specific misconfigurations (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval, etc.) per W3C CSP Level 3, indicating analytical behavior. While it doesn't mention side effects or auth needs, the description is transparent about its core functionality.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the menu ID and purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail but includes a reference to describe_tool which is marginally helpful. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has two parameters (one string, one nested object with required arrays) and no output schema, the description should explain the operation and policy structure. It fails to do so, relying on describe_tool for completeness. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly invoke the tool.

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% as the description does not explain any of the two parameters (operation, policy). The description lists actions (build, parse, analyze) but does not map them to the 'operation' parameter. The 'policy' object with required fields (default-src, script-src) is not described, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build, parse, and analyze Content-Security-Policy (CSP) headers.' It specifies the resource (CSP headers) and actions (build, parse, analyze), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on CSP, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description implies usage for CSP tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It directs to 'describe_tool with tool_id csp_generator for full page guidance,' which shifts responsibility but provides a fallback. However, no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given.

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