check_http_security

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already disclose the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations by specifying that it detects CDN/WAF interception, flags missing or weak protections against XSS/clickjacking/cross-origin attacks, and returns per-header findings. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and packed with specific details (headers, weakness types, CDN/WAF). Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the key behavior: what headers are checked, what weaknesses are flagged, and what is returned. It also mentions CDN/WAF detection. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., HTTPS availability) or edge cases, but for a read-only audit tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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%, with each parameter (domain, format, force_refresh) already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't compensate with extra details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 audits a domain's browser-facing HTTP security headers over HTTPS, lists specific headers and what it flags (unsafe-inline/unsafe-eval/wildcards, etc.), and indicates it returns per-header findings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ssl or check_mx by focusing on security headers.

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 notes 'Part of the scan_domain audit', providing context that it's a component of a broader audit. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, but the specific scope (HTTP security headers) implies its role. No explicit exclusions are given, but the context is clear enough for typical use.

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