scan_headers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds important context about header truncation (500 chars default, with option for full value), rate limits, and that CSP can exceed 4 KB on large sites. This provides behavioral detail beyond 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 multiple sentences but packs essential information without redundancy. It briefly explains the tool, distinguishes from sibling, states limits, and explains truncation. While slightly longer than minimal, all sentences are valuable.

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 that an output schema exists (mentioned in context signals but not shown), the description covers return format ({headers_present, headers_missing, findings, total_score}) and key behavioral details like truncation and rate limits. For a tool with only 2 parameters and 1 required, this is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the domain parameter's purpose and the include parameter's effect (default slim findings vs full raw value), including the use case for inspecting full CSP directives. This exceeds the schema's basic explanations.

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 it performs live HTTP GET and analyzes specific security headers (CSP, HSTS, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'check_headers', which validates headers already obtained, making purpose very specific.

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 this tool ('audit live website headers') and when to use alternative ('use check_headers to validate headers you already have'). Also includes usage limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr) which guide agent decision-making.

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