scan-headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states the main behavior—fetching and auditing headers—which implies a read-only network operation. However, it does not mention potential error cases, timeout behavior, or requirements like the URL being reachabe, which would be valuable for a network-reaching tool.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resoruce, followed by a concise list of audited headers. Every phrase contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the necessary context for correct invocation: it names the resource, the action, and the evaluation criteria. It does not describe the exact return format, but for such a simple tool that is a minor gap, and the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 covers the sole parameter (url) with a descriprion and format, so the 100% coverage gives a baseline of 3. The tool description adds context about what will be done with the URL (fetch and audit) but does not addfurther parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 descripion states a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('HTTP response headers from a URL'), and explicitly enumerates the security headers it audis (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options), making its purose unmistakabe. The tool clearly differs from siblings ike check-cve or whois-lookup, which target different resources.

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?

The descripion conveys a clear use case: audit a URL's HTTP response headers for security best practices. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the context is sufficient for an agent to recognize when this tool is appropriate, and no sibling could plausibly compete with this functionality.

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