list_available_security_headers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, and the second sentence explains the domain (security header handlers), but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the domain. There is no wasted text 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 is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides sufficient context about what security header handlers are. A brief mention of the related get_security_header_info tool for detailed information would have improved completeness, but it is not necessary for a basic list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the listed items are, which is helpful, but there is no parameter detail to add beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('all available clearskies security header handlers'), and it states that each entry includes a short description. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_security_header_info and other list_available_* tools.

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 this tool is for enumerating all security header handlers and provides context about what these handlers do. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over get_security_header_info or other list_available_* tools, but the 'list all' phrasing makes the primary use case clear.

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