electron_configure_csp

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds beyond that by explaining it returns both meta-tag and session.webRequest approaches, and accounts for bundler, framework, and dev-mode exceptions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds key details (output formats and considerations).

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output approaches. However, it could be more specific about how parameters affect the generated policy.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on output approaches.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'Content Security Policy for an Electron app', and distinguishes from sibling tools like electron_audit_security by specifying it accounts for bundler, framework, and dev-mode exceptions.

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 context for when to use (Electron app, need CSP) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, despite having sibling security tools like electron_audit_security.

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