generate_security_headers

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description details that no scan is performed and nothing is read from the live site. It also discloses the output format (name/value pairs, server-specific configs, warnings) and the default behavior of choosing 'recommended' when no preset or config is provided.

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 appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then clearly enumerates presets, config, return values, and usage context. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (name/value pairs, per-server configurations, raw headers, warnings) and how to invoke the tool in different scenarios. It covers the nested config object and default behavior, making the tool complete and self-contained for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the meaning of each preset ('recommended' safe baseline, 'strict' hardened nonce-based CSP, 'report-only' safe rollout) and the config object as an advanced override. It also clarifies the default behavior, which is not fully apparent from the schema alone.

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 generates a complete, best-practice set of HTTP security headers, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_security_headers by explicitly noting it requires no scan and reads nothing about the live site.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to set up headers on a new or unscanned site; use analyze_security_headers first when you want to see what an existing site is already missing.' Also explains the choice of presets and the config option, covering alternative scenarios.

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