Security Txt Inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating that Delx Agent Utilities are separate and may expose x402 utility pricing. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose precisely, second adds important context about pricing. No redundant or unnecessary words. Front-loaded with core 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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the tool finds (contacts, disclosure policy, trust links), which gives a reasonable idea of return content. Could be more complete on edge cases (e.g., missing security.txt), but sufficient for a simple inspection tool with good annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'url' and 'timeout' with descriptions ('Origin or URL to inspect', 'Timeout in seconds (1-15)'). The description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds security.txt contacts, disclosure policy, and trust links for a domain. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('security.txt... for a domain'), and among sibling utilities, it is distinct (e.g., util_robots_inspect, util_dns_lookup).

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?

Implies usage for inspecting security.txt but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it differentiate from similar sibling tools like util_robots_inspect. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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