check_http_security

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context: it inspects specific headers, flags weak protections, detects CDN/WAF interception, and mentions caching (force_refresh). This goes beyond 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?

Description is concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then specific headers, then return value, then context. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 existence of output schema and annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers what headers are checked, what vulnerabilities are assessed, and notes caching behavior. Could mention the structured output format but output schema exists.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond schema for parameters; it describes overall functionality but not parameter details. The schema already provides clear descriptions for domain, format, and force_refresh.

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?

Description explicitly states it audits HTTP security headers over HTTPS, listing specific headers and attack vectors. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on browser-facing HTTP security headers, and mentions it's part of scan_domain audit.

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?

Description provides clear context for when to use (checking HTTP security headers), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings. However, the specificity and sibling names imply appropriate use cases.

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