security_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the scope of checks and the return value (overall grade plus detailed findings), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the audit performs live network requests, whether it is safe/read-only, what limitations exist, or how the deep parameter affects behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence explains what the audit covers, and the second sentence states the return format. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool appears moderately complex, yet the description omits the meaning of the 'deep' parameter, any input/output structure, and behavior around the audit process. There is no output schema to compensate for missing return-value details. An agent would need to guess what 'deep' does and what 'detailed findings' look like.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter information. The 'url' parameter is weakly described by the schema as 'URL to audit', but the 'deep' boolean parameter has no schema description and no mention in the tool description. Because coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 clearly states what the tool does: a comprehensive security audit combining SSL analysis, security headers, sensitive file exposure, and content security analysis. It also indicates the output is an overall security grade with detailed findings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cf_firewall_events or lighthouse_audit, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that this is a security audit tool, which is already evident from the name. No sibling alternatives are referenced in the description.

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