check_http_security

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The description adds value by detailing specific detected threats (XSS, clickjacking, cross-origin attacks) and detection of CDN/WAF interception, offering context beyond the structured 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 concise at five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes meaningful detail, though it slightly repeats the concept of browser-facing headers.

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 inspecting multiple headers and detecting threats, the description fully covers the tool's function, input (domain), and output (per-header findings). The presence of an output schema supports completeness.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The tool description does not add extra meaning or usage details for parameters beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 verb 'Audit' and the resource 'browser-facing HTTP security headers over HTTPS', distinguishing it from sibling DNS-focused tools by specifying a list of inspected headers and its role in the 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. While the description implies use for HTTP security audits, it does not contrast with sibling tools like check_ssl or check_agent_discovery, nor provide context for when this tool is preferred.

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