util_security_txt_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'find' but does not disclose behavior: e.g., whether it performs HTTP requests, what happens if the domain has no security.txt, or any side effects. The agent lacks essential behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is too terse. While front-loaded with the action, it omits critical invocation details, making it underspecified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the flexible input schema and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent how to invoke the tool (what to put in arguments) or what to expect as output. More detail is needed for practical use.

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 input schema has a single required object 'arguments' with additionalProperties true, but the description does not specify what keys the object should contain (e.g., 'domain' or 'url'). With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to convey parameter meaning.

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 that the tool finds security.txt contacts, disclosure policy, and trust links for a domain. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('security.txt'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like util_robots_inspect for robots.txt.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention scenarios where security.txt inspection is appropriate or when to use other tools like util_dns_lookup or util_http_headers_inspect.

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