cookieguard_scan

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: outbound network requests occur, only authorized test endpoints should be targeted, and no login or browser cookies are captured, which softens the destructive hint meaningfully. It does not, however, explain why a GET-based audit is flagged destructive.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result states. The closing 'Same as cookieguard_audit with url' is the one slightly wasted/ambiguous line, but overall there is little fat.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully names the passed/failed/incomplete outcomes and exit codes. The network/authorization caveat covers the openWorld risk; only the mismatch between a GET audit and destructiveHint=true is left unexplained.

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% and the url parameter is fully documented (no credentials, query, or fragment; length bounds). The description reinforces the 'configured origin' constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'GET a URL ... and audit Set-Cookie headers with the fixed policy' tells an agent exactly what happens. It references the sibling via 'Same as cookieguard_audit with url', but that phrasing is ambiguous about how the two actually differ, so differentiation is present but not crisp.

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?

'Makes network requests; use authorized test endpoints' gives a real precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-cookieguard_audit guidance beyond the vague 'Same as cookieguard_audit with url', and no statement of when-not to use it.

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