security_htaccess_generator

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It lists what the tool does but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output format. The note to use describe_tool shifts responsibility away from this description.

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 two sentences and to the point, but the first sentence includes a redundant Menu ID and requires a period adjustment. It effectively front-loads the purpose and references external guidance. Slightly verbose but acceptable.

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 complexity of .htaccess generation and the narrow schema (only 3 parameters vs. many features), the description does not fully bridge the gap. It relies on another tool (describe_tool) for complete guidance, and there is no output schema. Incomplete for practical use.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'force HTTPS' for forceHttps and 'GZIP' for gzip, but does not explain wwwMode or address the missing parameters for features listed (e.g., 301 redirects, mod_rewrite). The description adds partial meaning but is incomplete.

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 builds a complete Apache .htaccess file with a specific list of features (force HTTPS, redirects, mod_rewrite, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It uses a specific verb and resource, and there are no sibling tools for .htaccess generation, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description suggests using describe_tool for full guidance but does not compare to siblings or provide conditions for use. Context of siblings (many security tools) does not clarify usage scenarios.

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