analyze_security_headers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful context by stating it 'fetches the page once over HTTPS, nothing is changed' and explaining the read-only network behavior. It also discloses outcome details such as HTTPS verification and the returned report content, going beyond the structured hints.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: it defines the security headers, states read-only behavior, enumerates the returned report contents, and provides a direct alternative. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the structure flows logically from what to output to when to use it.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating exactly what is returned: HTTPS status, per-header presence and value, missing headers, recommended best-practice config, and ready-to-paste server snippets. It also covers usage guidance and the single parameter's role, making the tool self-contained for an AI agent.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single `domain` parameter, including the format restriction 'Domain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)'. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and a baseline score is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a live website and report which HTTP security headers it currently sends.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `generate_security_headers` by focusing on auditing a real site rather than generating a config.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this to audit a real site's header posture; use generate_security_headers when you just want a fresh best-practice config to apply without scanning anything first.' This names the alternative and states exactly when each tool is appropriate.

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