mixedContent

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that mixed content scanning typically requires an HTTPS site, whether it scans all pages or just the given URL, or if it follows redirects (despite a 'followRedirect' parameter). No mention of rate limits, authentication, or result format.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, no extraneous words). However, it could be restructured to front-load more details without losing brevity, e.g., by mentioning the scope (single page vs. full site).

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe return values (list of URLs, issues count), how to interpret results, or the tool's scope (e.g., single page crawl vs. site-wide). Siblings like 'lighthouse' have richer descriptions for context.

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 67% (url and proxyCountry described, followRedirect missing). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the 'followRedirect' parameter's role or the effect of 'proxyCountry'. For a tool with moderate coverage, the description should compensate but fails to.

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 'Check for mixed content issues on a site' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lighthouse' (which covers broader audits) and 'brokenLink' (link checking) by focusing on the well-known mixed content security issue.

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 such as 'lighthouse' or 'webScrape'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., HTTPS site required) or situations where this tool might not apply.

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