skuuy_check_security_headers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope (full redirect chain, TLS issuer/expiry/days remaining), but doesn't disclose rate limits, auth needs, or the shape/limits of the returned audit (e.g. how many headers are checked).

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 fairly dense sentences that front-load the core purpose and then the fields audited. Slightly list-heavy but every element earns its place and there's no filler.

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 usefully previews the three audit dimensions the agent will get back. It does not explain output structure or error behavior (e.g. invalid URL, TLS failure), which would push it higher, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (url as https:// URL, follow_redirects with 10-hop limit). The description mentions redirect chain but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates a specific verb (audits) and resource (a URL's security posture) with three named sub-audits: security headers with examples, redirect chain, and TLS certificate health with issuer/expiry details. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like skuuy_read_url (fetches content) and skuuy_resolve_dns (DNS only).

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?

It gives clear context for use – 'pre-deploy checks or auditing any site's hardening' – which tells the agent when to reach for it over read_url. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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