find_insecure_http

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the detection is 'heuristic' and lists the specific patterns checked, which gives some insight into scope and potential false positives. However, it does not mention whether the tool scans source files, the nature of results, or any side effects, limiting behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists specific details without verbosity. Every word contributes to clarity, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 single-parameter schema, lack of output schema, and sibling context of static analysis tools, the description gives a reasonable but incomplete picture. It explains what the tool detects but omits what the output looks like, how results are returned, or any usage context. It is adequate for a simple heuristic search tool but leaves some 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 description coverage is 100%: the single 'name' parameter is described as 'Name or path of the loaded project' in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning or usage detail for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the weight.

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 defines what the tool detects: insecure HTTP patterns (http://, ws://, cookies without Secure/HttpOnly). Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'find_insecure_http' supplies the action, and the description distinguishes it from sibling security tools by specifying the exact heuristic coverage.

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 find_xss_vectors or find_sql_injection. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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