scan_headers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. Description adds critical behavioral details: default truncation to 500 chars with total_value_length for pre-truncation length, option to pass 'full' for raw values, and mentions CSP can exceed 4 KB. Also describes return object structure.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, truncation behavior, and return format. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with key information.

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 domain of HTTP security header analysis and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, behavioral nuances, rate limits, and return structure. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is high. However, description adds valuable semantics for the 'include' parameter, explaining the default behavior (truncation) and when to use 'full' (e.g., large CSP directives). Domain parameter is straightforward but context is adequate.

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 performs live HTTP GET to analyze specific security headers (CSP, HSTS, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool check_headers. This provides precise verb and resource identification.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (audit live website headers) and when to use alternative check_headers (validate headers you already have). Also includes rate limit information (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), giving practical usage context.

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