get_securitytxt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read via 'Get' and hints at return fields (security contact, disclosure policy), but says nothing about permissions required, whether an unconfigured zone errors or returns empty, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key action and resource come first and the parenthetical earns its place by defining security.txt. It is tightly sized, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate and even names the return content. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally state the not-configured/error behavior and access requirements to be fully callable with confidence.

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?

There is a single parameter (zone_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for zone_id beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 pairs a specific verb (Get) with a specific resource (security.txt configuration) and scopes it to a Cloudflare zone. The parenthetical clarifies what security.txt contains (security contact and disclosure policy), removing ambiguity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, none of which deal with security.txt, though it does not explicitly name a 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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the zone must belong to the caller's account), and no alternatives. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer that it is a read-only config lookup from the verb alone.

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