analyze_http_headers

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Evalua' suggests read-only assessment, but it does not disclose that the tool likely makes HTTP requests to the target, the role of port/use_https, or any potential network impact. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations; a slightly longer description with usage or parameter context would be more appropriately sized.

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 no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a security-scanning context, the description is far too minimal. It omits how port and use_https affect the scan, whether the tool is active or passive, and any target prerequisites, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention port or use_https at all. The parameter names and defaults are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema's titles and defaults already imply.

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 uses a specific verb 'Evalua' and a clear resource 'cabeceras de seguridad HTTP del objetivo', making the tool's function apparent. It is implicitly distinct from sibling analyze_tls, which targets TLS rather than HTTP headers, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as analyze_tls or assess_owasp. No prerequisites, target context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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