AI quan sát cấu hình bảo mật của trang

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so for the most important trait: it declares the check is passive, sends no additional requests, and fires no attack payloads, giving the agent a clear non-destructive safety profile. It also signals the output convention ('Cảnh báo là REVIEW_REQUIRED'), though it leaves the return shape and any artifact-writing side effects unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource list and followed by the non-destructiveness constraint and the warning label. Nothing is padded, though the final sentence about REVIEW_REQUIRED is terse enough to be slightly cryptic about what exactly is labeled.

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the core behavior, but it omits how the 'project' argument is resolved and does not describe what findings look like or whether they are persisted as artifacts. An agent could call it correctly but would not know what to expect back.

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 has zero description coverage and the single required 'project' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is a project id, slug, or path, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Kiểm tra' — check) and enumerates the concrete resources inspected: HTTPS, headers, session cookies, and password forms. It scopes this to 'the currently open page,' which separates it from the accessibility and layout audit siblings even though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'trên trang đang mở' (on the currently open page), which tells the agent a page must already be loaded before calling. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the accessibility or layout audits, and no mention of prerequisites such as starting the browser or selecting a project first.

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