contrastapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure yet reveals nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return values. The term 'Check' is ambiguous regarding whether this is a safe read operation or involves validation that could trigger security responses.

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?

While brief at three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as the text merely restates the tool name without conveying actionable information. The structure fails to front-load any critical usage constraints or behavioral warnings.

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 complete absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate for a tool accepting complex nested object input. It provides no basis for an agent to correctly invoke the tool or interpret results.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'headers' parameter, and the description offers no compensation by explaining what headers format is expected, what fields should be included, or how to structure the nested object. No semantic context is provided for constructing the required input.

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 'Check Headers Endpoint' is tautological, merely restating the tool name 'check_headers' with the generic addition of 'Endpoint'. It fails to specify what 'checking' entails (validation, analysis, or retrieval) or distinguish functionality from the sibling tool 'scan_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_headers', 'domain_report', or other security-oriented siblings in the server. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria to aid the agent in tool selection.

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