Quick Security

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only lists topics. It does not say whether the tool modifies anything, what it returns, how deep it scans, or whether it is read-only. 'Light security' hints at scope but is not a real behavioral disclosure.

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 short and free of filler, but it is closer to a tagline than a structured tool definition. It front-loads the security theme yet omits essential operational details.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with undocumented parameters and no annotations. It fails to clarify the target resource or the meaning of max_pages, and it gives no guidance on invocation context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention target or max_pages at all. An agent cannot tell what format target should take or what max_pages controls, so the description adds no semantic value for parameters.

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 names concrete security concerns—secrets in files and git history, .env exposure, headers, cookies, and mixed content—making it recognizable as a security-check tool. It is distinct from the QA-focused siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'scan' or 'check'.

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 tool's security scope implies it should be used for security checks rather than the layout/font/image/interaction testing done by siblings. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool or when to avoid it.

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