arvan_security_http_headers

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('check'), but annotations set readOnlyHint to false, creating a contradiction. No additional behavioral details (e.g., network requests, rate limits) are disclosed.

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 sentence that is concise, but it lacks structure. It could benefit from a brief list of what headers are checked or grading criteria.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return type (e.g., a grade and list of headers). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 0% description coverage for the two parameters. The description merely repeats the purpose without explaining the 'url' format or the meaning of 'timeout_s', failing to add value 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 clearly states the action ('check'), resource ('URL's HTTP security headers'), and outcome ('grade them'). It distinguishes itself from sibling security tools like arvan_security_scan_image and arvan_security_scan_vulnerabilities.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when not to. The purpose is clear but the description lacks context about alternatives or prerequisites, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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