check_mixed_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it reports severity (active vs passive) and line numbers, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions, and the description complements the structured metadata.

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 fluff. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by useful detail on resource types and output. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it detects, and what it reports. There are no missing behavioral or usage details an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 schema already fully describes the single url parameter with a clear description ('HTTPS URL to scan'). The description's first sentence echoes this but adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate—no extra parameter context is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan'), a specific resource ('HTTPS page for mixed content'), and enumerates the exact resource types (images, scripts, stylesheets, iframes). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_ssl or check_headers by focusing on mixed content, and even mentions the output (severity and line numbers).

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 implies the use case (detecting browser warnings from mixed content) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like check_ssl or check_headers. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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