run_security_audit

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

Description lists checks but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies the page, requires user interaction, or is safe/read-only. With no annotations, this is a gap.

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?

Concise single paragraph with a clear bulleted list, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 output schema exists, description need not detail return format. Covers main checks but could mention if tool is destructive or requires page load; overall adequate.

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?

No parameters; baseline 4. Description adds value by explaining the tool's scope beyond the empty schema.

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?

Explicitly states it runs a comprehensive security audit on the current page, listing specific checks. Differentiates from sibling tools like run_lighthouse which focus on performance.

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?

Clear context for when to use (security auditing), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. Since no similar siblings, it's acceptable but could mention not to use for performance audits.

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