mixed_content_check

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about mixed content blocking scripts and triggering warnings, and the no-op behavior, which helps the agent understand consequences.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence explains the action, second adds context and edge case. Highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, edge case, and behavioral implications adequately. No missing information for effective use.

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?

One parameter 'url' with schema description 'Absolute https:// URL to inspect.' Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond stating 'HTTPS page' and handling of http://. Baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'fetch[es] an HTTPS page and report[s] any sub-resource references that use plain http://', listing specific element types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_*, cf_*, or robots_txt_validate.

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?

Description explicitly says it's a no-op for HTTP pages (returns 'not_https'), implying usage on HTTPS pages. It does not explicitly state alternatives, but the purpose is distinct.

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